O.J. In The News Again

[weezer]

tv

Nicoles bank account was in trouble the moment she baught and moved into bundy to live there.She was just trying to clean up that mistake when she later asked him to let her use his address. She had to know, using his address would have caused her to be more involved with him. He rejected this involvement by tell her NO.

martin II

actually, he went along with it -- I believe in hopes that it would keep her tied to him. It was not until she called off the reconciliation that he threatened her with the IRS.

[socaldiva]

tv
imo that when Paula and oj got back togeather Nicole realized that it was over for her and she then made plans to move from the brentwood area.
imo
martin II

Nah, you are trying to re-invent history here.

[martin II]

actually, he went along with it -- I believe in hopes that it would keep her tied to him. It was not until she called off the reconciliation that he threatened her with the IRS.

nonsense.
If oj had any interest in controlling Nicole he would have said 'WHY YES HONEY' when he read that letter where she was begging him to allow her to come back. He read the letter and continued to deal with Paula and or others.
If he wanted to still be attatched to her he would have allowed her to stay in his life by allowing her to use his home in her IRS scam.Many have said oj is a bad guy for trying to evade paying fred and breaking the law. Nicole was breaking the law with this scam.imo
martin II

[martin II]

If Nicole says we are finished. It means we are finished. It does not mean we are finished BUT i still need you to expose yourself and give me your support in this IRS scam so i can break the law and hide this money from the IRS for myself.imo
martin II

[weezer]

nonsense.
If oj had any interest in controlling Nicole he would have said 'WHY YES HONEY' when he read that letter where she was begging him to allow her to come back. He read the letter and continued to deal with Paula and or others.
If he wanted to still be attatched to her he would have allowed her to stay in his life by allowing her to use his home in her IRS scam.Many have said oj is a bad guy for trying to evade paying fred and breaking the law. Nicole was breaking the law with this scam.imo
martin II

nonsense. orenthal proved by his actions after he murdered Nicole that he was still obsessed with her. Why else would he want to kill himself? Either he didn't want to live with knowing what he was capable of (butchering two human beings) or he was still obsessed with her. imo

[weezer]

If Nicole says we are finished. It means we are finished. It does not mean we are finished BUT i still need you to expose yourself and give me your support in this IRS scam so i can break the law and hide this money from the IRS for myself.imo
martin II

Nicole was through with orenthal. She told him so. He stalked, threatened and murdered her. fini

[William Anthony]

What I'm trying to say (sorry I don't any kind of law experience, just common sense through life) is that there are usually at least two ways to handle a situation. I think Simpson chose the wrong way.

Back in the mid-70s I had a motorcycle stolen. I worked nights and when I came home I found it missing. I had a strong suspicion who took it and I was right. I had a couple of guns at the time and some pretty strong friends.

I had two options: Get my guns and friends, drive over to the home of the person I suspected and take the motorcycle back. After all, it was mine and it was stolen. No question of ownership involved, of course. My second option was calling the police and reporting my suspicions. I chose the second course, the bike was recovered (though useless, the SOB and his friend had already stripped it down.)

It was reported to Simpson by Riccio (apparently) that others had Simpson's memorabilia, alledgedly stolen from him at some point in time. As in my situation, he had two options but chose the former.

My point is that two wrongs don't make a right. If the loot was stolen, Simpson had a legal right to recover it. He could have notified the police and arranged to meet them at the hotel. Maybe they don't like him and think he got away with murder, but I also think that most professionals are able to rise above their prejudices and do what's right. After all, they don't let someone who just murdered a dangerous drug dealer walk. In taking matters into his/their own hand(s), another crime was committed, just as it would have been a crime for me to forcefully recover my stolen motorcycle at gunpoint.

I do not think anyone here is saying that Simpson is right and the discussion centered around the nature of the legal charges. Murder unlike the robbery does not involve the theft of person property. MY point was and I think we should look at the wording of the codification of the statute for the charge of robbery. I do believe it involves the unlawful taking of someone else's property. Since, imho, the property of life belongs to the owner of the life unless the owner does something illegal to forefit that rght, the question of ownership is not a true element of the charge of murder. You will rememeber when Blacks as slaves, were treated as property, and the charge of murder was absent, because of the legal ownership of the life.

[martin II]

Nicole was through with orenthal. She told him so. He stalked, threatened and murdered her. fini

not according to the people that count.

martinii

[martin II]

nonsense. orenthal proved by his actions after he murdered Nicole that he was still obsessed with her. Why else would he want to kill himself? Either he didn't want to live with knowing what he was capable of (butchering two human beings) or he was still obsessed with her. imo

nonsense.
makes no sense.
imo
martinii

[socaldiva]

not according to the people that count.

martinii

Right. Those that like Orenthal, rewrite history to suit their own needs of denial. Those are the only ones that count. Sure.

[Silveradotd]

:eek: Is He still free darnit, Mygosh havn't we had enough of him, GUESS NOT!! It take's skill and practice to kill with a knife, its hard to see him doing it the way they say. Is he that smart NAHHH !!! He's just a big dumb football player. He showed us that in vegas..... (IMO):seeya:

[martin II]

:eek: Is He still free darnit, Mygosh havn't we had enough of him, GUESS NOT!! It take's skill and practice to kill with a knife, its hard to see him doing it the way they say. Is he that smart NAHHH !!! He's just a big dumb football player. He showed us that in vegas..... (IMO):seeya:

In 1 , 1 1/2 minutes they say.

[socaldiva]

*snip
It take's skill and practice to kill with a knife, its hard to see him doing it the way they say. Is he that smart NAHHH !!! He's just a big dumb football player. He showed us that in vegas..... (IMO):seeya:

IIRC he received some sort of Navy Seals training on a movie set right around the time of the murders. I agree that he's dumb though :D

[Heyes]

Paula left a kiss off message for Orenthal the night of the murders, yet you "find it difficult to see how Paula rejected oj"?. Paula only came back after Orenthal was arrested, because she was implored to do so by his family. They didn't stay together when he got out, did they? How many times can you ignore these basic elements & pretend they don't exist?

Once she knew at least he'd be in jail and it was safe. lol j/k

Heck I don't even remember her lasting through the trial. Did she go to the trial? I remember she left for Florida. Was she supporting him from Florida?

[Silveradotd]

IIRC he received some sort of Navy Seals training on a movie set right around the time of the murders. I agree that he's dumb though :D
Yeap, A stunt advisor gave him instruction in how to look like he knows what he's doing. It by no means makes him skilled enough to do it for real. I have studied martial arts, started when I was 5 years old, served in the Army stationed at Fort Brag NC. (SFAR/GB) 15 Years. (If you don't know what that stand's for look it up,) I can tell you for a fact that he dose not have the skill to kill (Two) 2 People.... (IMO) Enough Said.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I can tell you for a fact that he dose not have the skill to kill (Two) 2 People.... (IMO) Enough Said.

"Enough said"? Perhaps you can tell us how it is that Orenthal's blood, hair & foot prints were at Bundy? How he sustained those cuts that very night, blood at Rockingham etc? Do you really think the average Joe that stabs someone to death has to have prior, formal training?

[tv]

tv
imo that when Paula and oj got back togeather Nicole realized that it was over for her and she then made plans to move from the brentwood area.
imo
martin IIWhy would Paula lie about why she and Simpson got back together? According to you she's on his side.

[bobaugust]

Yeap, A stunt advisor gave him instruction in how to look like he knows what he's doing. It by no means makes him skilled enough to do it for real. I have studied martial arts, started when I was 5 years old, served in the Army stationed at Fort Brag NC. (SFAR/GB) 15 Years. (If you don't know what that stand's for look it up,) I can tell you for a fact that he dose not have the skill to kill (Two) 2 People.... (IMO) Enough Said.

Silveradotd, I agree that Simpson didn't have any skill. He didn't know what it would take to kill someone for real. He just kept stabbing and cutting Ron over thirty times in less than a minute until Ron stopped fighting back and then he dropped him to the ground to bleed to death. Simpson then returned to his exwife who was lying on the ground unconscious, put one foot on her back, pulled her head up with his ungloved left hand and sliced her throat with the knife he held in his right hand nearly decapitating her. Simpson couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

[Silveradotd]

Silveradotd, I agree that Simpson didn't have any skill. He didn't know what it would take to kill someone for real. He just kept stabbing and cutting Ron over thirty times in less than a minute until Ron stopped fighting back and then he dropped him to the ground to bleed to death. Simpson then returned to his exwife who was lying on the ground unconscious, put one foot on her back, pulled her head up with his ungloved left hand and sliced her throat with the knife he held in his right hand nearly decapitating her. Simpson couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust
Yeap, Who ever did the job got it done, And I bet they had a few injuries to show for there handy work, You know more than just one 1/4 inch cut on a forfinger, Yeap must of had some cuts on the forearms, not to mention the bumps and bruising on the upper body, Face, and the same on the legs. even someone with lots of combat time would have these things. You know I don't think he's innocent, far from it, I think he payed to have it done and then watched, thats more his thing, His MO... (IMO)

[socaldiva]

Yeap, Who ever did the job got it done, And I bet they had a few injuries to show for there handy work, You know more than just one 1/4 inch cut on a forfinger, Yeap must of had some cuts on the forearms, not to mention the bumps and bruising on the upper body, Face, and the same on the legs. even someone with lots of combat time would have these things. You know I don't think he's innocent, far from it, I think he payed to have it done and then watched, thats more his thing, His MO... (IMO)

According to your theory, this unknown killer would have left some blood at the scene, but the only blood is that of Simpson & the two victims. I don't know how you can explain Simpson's blood, if you think he was just standing there watching.

[socaldiva]

This link says a co-defendent in the Vegas crimes said Simpson requested guns be brought.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071018/D8SBBCNG0.html

[Silveradotd]

:D (IMO) I don’t know, I have my own opinions and ideas about the case. At least I don’t plagiarize other people’s theories and ideas over and over again. And make out that it’s all true just because I want to fit in.
Hey maybe we should write a book about how OJ did it, I’ll bet we could make a few bucks, there are more than enough theories floating around out there that we could use. OH Wait that’s right, we can’t do that. The dead drug dealer’s family has the rights to that book. What was the name of it, OH Yeah, If, I DID IT. DARN! It was just an idea……. Just because the rest of the world is jumping off the edge into the abyss,, don’t make it right. (JMO)
:beer: :seeya:

[bobaugust]

Yeap, Who ever did the job got it done, And I bet they had a few injuries to show for there handy work, You know more than just one 1/4 inch cut on a forfinger, Yeap must of had some cuts on the forearms, not to mention the bumps and bruising on the upper body, Face, and the same on the legs. even someone with lots of combat time would have these things. You know I don't think he's innocent, far from it, I think he payed to have it done and then watched, thats more his thing, His MO... (IMO)

Nope, no other cuts. Simpson was the only one armed and all the blood found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside Simpson's house all came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson. It always amazes me how some people completely underestimate this six foot two hundred pound former world class athlete. Simpson was bigger and stronger than Ron Goldman, as well as angry and armed with a weapon. Goldman was caught in a small enclosed area with no room to run or maneuver. If as the evidence suggests, Simpson managed to get behind Ron, holding him with his left arm while he stabbed and cut him with a knife in his right hand, not only would Simpson not have sustained any injuries but any blood from the killing would have been only on his sleeves and the front of his clothing. In the struggle for his life Ron evidently managed to pull Simpson's knit cap off his head and pull Simpson's left hand glove off. Both fell under the plant leaves in the small dark garden area. If we base our beliefs on all the known evidence in this case there was no one else there except the two victims and the killer, who left his bloody shoe prints along the long walkway on his way to the rear of the house as well as his fresh blood drops on the walkway and the rear gate. The start of a blood trail leading from the victims to inside Simpson's house. All of those blood drops were identified as Simpson's blood. In fact all of the relevant physical evidence collected in this case including hair and fiber evidence points only to Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else and none of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Nope, no other cuts. Simpson was the only one armed and all the blood found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside Simpson's house all came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson. It always amazes me how some people completely underestimate this six foot two hundred pound former world class athlete. Simpson was bigger and stronger than Ron Goldman, as well as angry and armed with a weapon. Goldman was caught in a small enclosed area with no room to run or maneuver. If as the evidence suggests, Simpson managed to get behind Ron, holding him with his left arm while he stabbed and cut him with a knife in his right hand, not only would Simpson not have sustained any injuries but any blood from the killing would have been only on his sleeves and the front of his clothing. In the struggle for his life Ron evidently managed to pull Simpson's knit cap off his head and pull Simpson's left hand glove off. Both fell under the plant leaves in the small dark garden area. If we base our beliefs on all the known evidence in this case there was no one else there except the two victims and the killer, who left his bloody shoe prints along the long walkway on his way to the rear of the house as well as his fresh blood drops on the walkway and the rear gate. The start of a blood trail leading from the victims to inside Simpson's house. All of those blood drops were identified as Simpson's blood. In fact all of the relevant physical evidence collected in this case including hair and fiber evidence points only to Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else and none of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

What about the blood that was not collected and tested? Who did that belong to?

[martin II]

Why would Paula lie about why she and Simpson got back together? According to you she's on his side.

I don't know about Paula telling a lie but i know she was with oj during the trial and for some time after.I do remember oj visitring her in Florida to play golf and her Father having some problem with the relationship and they then ended the affair.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

:D (IMO) I don’t know, I have my own opinions and ideas about the case. At least I don’t plagiarize other people’s theories and ideas over and over again. And make out that it’s all true just because I want to fit in.
Hey maybe we should write a book about how OJ did it, I’ll bet we could make a few bucks, there are more than enough theories floating around out there that we could use. OH Wait that’s right, we can’t do that. The dead drug dealer’s family has the rights to that book. What was the name of it, OH Yeah, If, I DID IT. DARN! It was just an idea……. Just because the rest of the world is jumping off the edge into the abyss,, don’t make it right. (JMO)
:beer: :seeya:

Silveradotd

I agree with your post as i have never believed oj had the skills to kill two
people with over 60-70 wounds especially in the time of 1 1 1/2 minutes at the same time.
As far as the training he receives for that movie i think it was "oj, hold the knife by the handle not the blade " type stuff.

martin II

[martin II]

CONCLUSION: The postures inferred from analysis of the blood distribution on Goldman are in good agreement with the postures that a professional killer would be familiar with… Victim seated, bent nearly double, killer behind/above squatting, left hand over victim’s mouth, bending the head to the right, knife in the killer’s right hand attacking the left side of victim’s head/neck.

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


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

[weezer]

What about the blood that was not collected and tested? Who did that belong to?

the blood collected belonged to the murderer, orenthal james simpson and his two victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. If the blood was 'uncollected' how would you know there was any there?

[weezer]

:D (IMO) I don’t know, I have my own opinions and ideas about the case. At least I don’t plagiarize other people’s theories and ideas over and over again. And make out that it’s all true just because I want to fit in.
Hey maybe we should write a book about how OJ did it, I’ll bet we could make a few bucks, there are more than enough theories floating around out there that we could use. OH Wait that’s right, we can’t do that. The dead drug dealer’s family has the rights to that book. What was the name of it, OH Yeah, If, I DID IT. DARN! It was just an idea……. Just because the rest of the world is jumping off the edge into the abyss,, don’t make it right. (JMO)
:beer: :seeya:

Credible evidence and testimony proved orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. There was DNA and forensic evidence of three people at the murder scene: the murderer - orenthal james simpson and his victims - Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. Of the three people involved, the murderer - orenthal james simpson and his victims - Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, ONLY orenthal james simpson was found to have drugs in his system.
:beer: :seeya:

[martin II]

Credible evidence and testimony proved orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. There was DNA and forensic evidence of three people at the murder scene: the murderer - orenthal james simpson and his victims - Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. Of the three people involved, the murderer - orenthal james simpson and his victims - Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, ONLY orenthal james simpson was found to have drugs in his system.
:beer: :seeya:

again

The fact that it is said that oj had TRACES of marijuna in his system on 6/13 means what??

martin II

[weezer]

again

The fact that it is said that oj had TRACES of marijuna in his system on 6/13 means what??

martin II

it means exactly that: on 6/13, orenthal james simpson had detectable amounts of drugs in his system.

[martin II]

it means exactly that: on 6/13, orenthal james simpson had detectable amounts of drugs in his system.

What kind of drugs were found in oj's system.

cocain
Heron
Pills

or traces of marijuana.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Silveradotd

I agree with your post as i have never believed oj had the skills to kill two
people with over 60-70 wounds especially in the time of 1 1 1/2 minutes at the same time.
As far as the training he receives for that movie i think it was "oj, hold the knife by the handle not the blade " type stuff.

martin II

martin II, over 60 to 70 wounds? How did you come up with that number? As to what kind of training Simpson received for the movie I doubt if they had to tell Simpson to hold the knife by the handle, funny, since Simpson owned many Swiss Army knives. Simpson was member of board of directors of the Forschner Group, a manufacturing company that marketed Swiss Army knives and watches.

Another City, Not My Own, Dominick Dunne,
"Have you heard anything about this television pilot OJ made just before the murders?"

"The Frogman pilot. I've heard about it, but I don't know anybody who's seen it. Isn't that where they taught OJ how to use a knife.?" "It's called the silent kill." said Faye. "The guy I know trained OJ to do the silent kill."

"I saw Arnie Kopelson last Sunday night at a screening at Len and Wendy Goldberg's house. We were talking about the Frogman pilot at dinner. Arnie helped finance get a print of it over to at the Chateau, but a couple of days later he said that there were no prints available."

"I think they've been destroyed myself." said Faye. "This friend of mine can tell you everything. Mark Lonsdale. The pilot was his idea. It was really a stuntman's show. NBC said, we'll take the project, but you have to use OJ in the lead."

"That would have been the request of Don Ohlmeyer, the president of NBC West Coast for OJ to get the lead. They're bosom friends. He visits OJ in jail several nights a week. He's a total advocate, very outspoken that OJ didn't do it. Seems strange for the president of a network."

"Mark didn't mind having to use OJ in the part," said Faye. "He said he had name recognition, and if the murders hadn't come along it would probably be on the air now."

"What did Mark think of OJ?"

"He said he was a real prick with a sense of public image. He'd be difficult on the set and then, if he spotted a fan, he'd be charm itself."

"Does it really show him slitting a woman's throat in the pilot?"

"He grabs a girl by the throat and puts a knife up to her throat," said Faye. "Mark said that there were a lot of spooky similarities in the pilot to what later happened in real life, that didn't seem spooky when the pilot was being made."

"There's a scene where he goes to his ex-wife's grave," said Faye. "And listen to this. There's a character in the pilot that OJ's character threatens to kill. The character's name is Goldman. OJ says the line 'I'm going to kill you, Goldman."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

CONCLUSION: The postures inferred from analysis of the blood distribution on Goldman are in good agreement with the postures that a professional killer would be familiar with… Victim seated, bent nearly double, killer behind/above squatting, left hand over victim’s mouth, bending the head to the right, knife in the killer’s right hand attacking the left side of victim’s head/neck.

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


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

martin II, Dick Wagner was no authority on professional killings.

"John Douglas during his twenty five year career with the FBI, has become the leading expert on criminal personality, profiling and pioneer of modern criminal investigative analysis." In his book Journey Into Darkness he spoke about the Bundy murders and pointed some of the reasons why he believed the murders were not committed by a professional killer.

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

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

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Dick Wagner was no authority on professional killings.

"John Douglas during his twenty five year career with the FBI, has become the leading expert on criminal personality, profiling and pioneer of modern criminal investigative analysis." In his book Journey Into Darkness he spoke about the Bundy murders and pointed some of the reasons why he believed the murders were not committed by a professional killer.

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

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

bobaugust

too many problems at the FBI to just believe anything in a book written by one of them.
Wagner pakes sense to me. Also i have not read one by you.

martin II

[tv]

too many problems at the FBI to just believe anything in a book written by one of them.
Wagner pakes sense to me. Also i have not read one by you.

martin IINor have we read one by you. Just more denials in the face of indisputable evidence. Before you deny that you are in denial let me use the example of your saying that there were 60 or 70 stab wounds which is completely untrue. It's funny you want to make Simpson look dumb when it comes to how to hold the knife but you insist he was a brilliant business man.

martin, if it doesn't fit, you should quit. ;)

[weezer]

too many problems at the FBI to just believe anything in a book written by one of them.
Wagner pakes sense to me. Also i have not read one by you.

martin II

well, he may 'pake' sense to you but not to me! :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Holy cow, now the FBI has been discredited? :(

[Heyes]

Holy cow, now the FBI has been discredited? :(

Amazing isn't it?
One thing I've learned from these boards is defenders of murderers will discredit their own mother if it will help win their case.


Dd you watch Dr. Phil with the Goldmans on?
At the criminal trial. Kim Goldman said that after the killer was declared not guilty, Mr. johnny turned in his seat and said......to Kim......."Gotch ya"
I never thought he was that low but it didn't surprise me.
Sometimes I just can't believe the evil in people.

[martin II]

Nor have we read one by you. Just more denials in the face of indisputable evidence. Before you deny that you are in denial let me use the example of your saying that there were 60 or 70 stab wounds which is completely untrue. It's funny you want to make Simpson look dumb when it comes to how to hold the knife but you insist he was a brilliant business man.

martin, if it doesn't fit, you should quit. ;)

ron had about 40 wounds and nicole had about 20. If you need to be exact
you can read the coronor's report.

I have never made simpson look dumb. I have never insisted that oj was BRILLIANT. Those are your words that you are trying to give.

I have said that oj had a fortune of about $10,000,000 which imo is unlikely
to be created by someone that is dumb/slow etc.I also indicated that imo
there are some that declair themselves to be brilliant that have not come close to this acheivement.
IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Nor have we read one by you. Just more denials in the face of indisputable evidence. Before you deny that you are in denial let me use the example of your saying that there were 60 or 70 stab wounds which is completely untrue. It's funny you want to make Simpson look dumb when it comes to how to hold the knife but you insist he was a brilliant business man.

martin, if it doesn't fit, you should quit. ;)

TV

WAGNERS is the best i have read. I have posted his theory of how ron was killed and it is in great detail. If you care to refute any of the those details, please have a go at it.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

TV

WAGNERS is the best i have read. I have posted his theory of how ron was killed and it is in great detail. If you care to refute any of the those details, please have a go at it.imo
martin II

martin II, for you to accept Wagner's theory of the murders you must also accept the fact that Simpson went to Bundy that night since that's what Wagner's theory is about. Are you telling us that is what you now believe?

bobaugust

[tv]

ron had about 40 wounds and nicole had about 20. If you need to be exact
you can read the coronor's report.

I have never made simpson look dumb. I have never insisted that oj was BRILLIANT. Those are your words that you are trying to give.

I have said that oj had a fortune of about $10,000,000 which imo is unlikely
to be created by someone that is dumb/slow etc.I also indicated that imo
there are some that declair themselves to be brilliant that have not come close to this acheivement.
IMO
MARTIN iiWhen you say Simpson had to be told which end of a knife to grip then you're portraying him as dumb. You're the one that said it, not me.

Yes, the word BRILLIANT was mine. I didn't bother to do a search to see what words you used to describe his business sense. I'm not sure what your last remark meant about some people thinking they're brilliant when they're not but I'm sure it made sense to you. :shrug:

[socaldiva]

Amazing isn't it?
One thing I've learned from these boards is defenders of murderers will discredit their own mother if it will help win their case.


Dd you watch Dr. Phil with the Goldmans on?
At the criminal trial. Kim Goldman said that after the killer was declared not guilty, Mr. johnny turned in his seat and said......to Kim......."Gotch ya"
I never thought he was that low but it didn't surprise me.
Sometimes I just can't believe the evil in people.


Yes, I did watch Dr Phil & I was shocked that Cochran went that low & evil is exactly the word I would use to describe that behavior. :flamemad:

[martin II]

When you say Simpson had to be told which end of a knife to grip then you're portraying him as dumb. You're the one that said it, not me.

Yes, the word BRILLIANT was mine. I didn't bother to do a search to see what words you used to describe his business sense. I'm not sure what your last remark meant about some people thinking they're brilliant when they're not but I'm sure it made sense to you. :shrug:

What i said about oj being told how to hold the knife was just a joke in response to some post talking about oj having received some special training in how to kill with a fnife in a movie.My point which you missed was that MOVIE SET training is not the same as Military.I assumed you would know that.imo

I have never said oj was dumb and offered the fact that he was smart enough to acheive a fortune of $10,000,000 as proof that he was not.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

Looks like more illegal Simpson deeds. It seems he stiffed the State of California out of 1.4 million in income tax. Maybe he'll go to jail for that if he doesn't pay up. :D

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/o-j-running-from-1-4-million-tax-bill/

[William Anthony]

the blood collected belonged to the murderer, orenthal james simpson and his two victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. If the blood was 'uncollected' how would you know there was any there?

Um, that is a hard one! Could it be because LE admitted it?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have never said oj was dumb and offered the fact that he was smart enough to acheive a fortune of $10,000,000 as proof that he was not.imo

martin II

He didn't "acheive a fortune of $10,000,000" without the help of managers & financial advisors. Anyone can do that with a football players salary, being that they are paid such inflated salaries.

OJ wasn't too smart. He had $10,000.000 & had to spend it on a criminal defense because he was dumb enough to leave all kinds of evidence at the murder scene & his home. Then he had to spend additional money to finance his civil suit. I guess that's why he's broke & has to do ghoul shows. hahaha.

[William Anthony]

I will not claim to be suprised to see that, although the tiltle of this thread is "O.J. In The News Again", it has quickly digressed into a discussion of the criminal trial. This is evidence that reinforces my opinion that Simpson cannot receive a fair trial on the charges in this lates case, due to the tendency of most of America to be incapable of accepting the criminal verdict.

[tv]

What i said about oj being told how to hold the knife was just a joke in response to some post talking about oj having received some special training in how to kill with a fnife in a movie.My point which you missed was that MOVIE SET training is not the same as Military.I assumed you would know that.imo

I have never said oj was dumb and offered the fact that he was smart enough to acheive a fortune of $10,000,000 as proof that he was not.imo

martin III never said that movie set training and military training are the same thing. My personal opinion is that he didn't use his training from the movie to kill Ron and Nicole. He just hacked away and with his superior physical strength and a weapon he was able to overpower Ron.

Sorry, martin, I didn't think you were joking about the knife because up to now I don't think I've ever seen you joke with anyone or respond to a joking post. :shrug:

[tv]

Looks like more illegal Simpson deeds. It seems he stiffed the State of California out of 1.4 million in income tax. Maybe he'll go to jail for that if he doesn't pay up. :D

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/o-j-running-from-1-4-million-tax-bill/It looks like OJ Simpson is "in the news again". On topic. :)

Thanks, diva. I wonder why they haven't collected it like they would from most ordinary citizens?

[William Anthony]

It looks like OJ Simpson is "in the news again". On topic. :)

Thanks, diva. I wonder why they haven't collected it like they would from most ordinary citizens?

Perhaps, like some citizens, he has made a plan to repay or is negotiating a payment plan. :) It was interesting to see the particular pictures on this thread. Do you agree?

[socaldiva]

It looks like OJ Simpson is "in the news again". On topic. :)

Thanks, diva. I wonder why they haven't collected it like they would from most ordinary citizens?

I don't know why they haven't enforced it yet, but they said on the radio today that they put this information on the internet in an effort to shame them into paying. I guess they haven't heard that Simpson has no shame :D

[tv]

Perhaps, like some citizens, he has made a plan to repay or is negotiating a payment plan. :) It was interesting to see the particular pictures on this thread. Do you agree?Interesting but probably coincidental. What do you think? :)

[tv]

I don't know why they haven't enforced it yet, but they said on the radio today that they put this information on the internet in an effort to shame them into paying. I guess they haven't heard that Simpson has no shame :DIf he hasn't been shamed into voluntarily paying a penny on the civil judgement this isn't going to work. I thought paying taxes was mandatory like dying. Guess not.

[socaldiva]

If he hasn't been shamed into voluntarily paying a penny on the civil judgement this isn't going to work. I thought paying taxes was mandatory like dying. Guess not.

I thought taxes were mandatory too & I don't understand how his pension would be exempt from that. Usually the government will attach anything and everything they can. I figure this tax bill has to be at least 10 yrs old, considering he hasn't lived here in the last decade or so :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Interesting but probably coincidental. What do you think? :)

I think they were selected for a particular reason and the message was not lost to me. :) I think that I will now look deeper into the organization that published the article.:)

[William Anthony]

If he hasn't been shamed into voluntarily paying a penny on the civil judgement this isn't going to work. I thought paying taxes was mandatory like dying. Guess not.

Taxes and death are similar in more ways than one. The both exact their toll when they are ready, which is most likely when we are not. :)

[tv]

I think they were selected for a particular reason and the message was not lost to me. :) I think that I will now look deeper into the organization that published the article.:)If the pictures had been of Russell Crowe, Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts would you feel the need to research the organization?

[martin II]

I think they were selected for a particular reason and the message was not lost to me. :) I think that I will now look deeper into the organization that published the article.:)

What is odd is that TMZ talked about a long list of tax 'CHEATS' and them posted three black faces.Maby these are the only picturese TMZ could find
in their library.:shrug:

martin II

[martin II]

If the pictures had been of Russell Crowe, Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts would you feel the need to research the organization?

I don't think it was necessary to post any pictures of anyone.If they had to expose people they could have just posted a list of names.Actually there are many reasons why some people have not paid taxes, non of which TMZ may be aware of.So i think it was just a cheap story.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I never said that movie set training and military training are the same thing. My personal opinion is that he didn't use his training from the movie to kill Ron and Nicole. He just hacked away and with his superior physical strength and a weapon he was able to overpower Ron.

Sorry, martin, I didn't think you were joking about the knife because up to now I don't think I've ever seen you joke with anyone or respond to a joking post. :shrug:

tv
i think it was oj's doctor that testified that oj was not in the physical shape many have assumed he was when he was playing football.That he suffers from severe arthritic knees which is evident when you watch him walk.It has also been reported that Ron was a big strong young man himself so i am not sure that ron was some weakling which leads me to believe that there may have been two killers at bundy as Wagner proposes.imo
martin II

[weezer]

ron had about 40 wounds and nicole had about 20. If you need to be exact
you can read the coronor's report.

I have never made simpson look dumb. I have never insisted that oj was BRILLIANT. Those are your words that you are trying to give.

I have said that oj had a fortune of about $10,000,000 which imo is unlikely
to be created by someone that is dumb/slow etc.I also indicated that imo
there are some that declair themselves to be brilliant that have not come close to this acheivement.
IMO
MARTIN ii

'declair'????

[weezer]

Perhaps, like some citizens, he has made a plan to repay or is negotiating a payment plan. :) It was interesting to see the particular pictures on this thread. Do you agree?

so you think they're going to post the pictures of people no one knows? get over yourself. :D

[Heyes]

OJ simpson has been accused of violently threatening a handyman who the disgraced former US football star accused of sleeping with his girlfriend.

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_e39/ide2007.09.25.01.25.31.html#hdng0

The 911 tape from the gardners wife was released, I'll see if I can find that and post it, also there is a picture of the gardener floating around somewhere.
Does oj sleep? I swear all he does is plot who he is going to threaten and then spends the rest of his time running around actually threatening them.
This guy really needs to be locked up.
IMO

[Heyes]

In the same article I just posted is this........



Police reports and court documents obtained by The Post show that Prody and Gonzalez have met before; police busted the pair inside Gonzalez's truck on Aug. 22, 2006 for allegedly having drugs.[13] Gonzalez, who served a short stint in prison in 1990, was a handyman at Simpson's estate until four months ago, but denied ever meeting Prody. The Post, however, says Gonzalez and Prody were busted with drugs in his truck in August 2006.[11] More O.J. But the Post said Prody not only has history with Simpson, including three police-calling domestic disputes between 2000 and 2005, but with Gonzalez.[6]

And oj was concerned with who nicole hung out with????
Huh, I think the one's with the drug problems are OJ, his girlfriend and her new drug buddy.
IMO

[socaldiva]

I don't think it was necessary to post any pictures of anyone.If they had to expose people they could have just posted a list of names.Actually there are many reasons why some people have not paid taxes, non of which TMZ may be aware of.So i think it was just a cheap story.imo
martin II

Gosh, Martin I thought you didn't read my posts...yet it appears on though you clicked on my link, or you wouldn't have seen the pictures :tongue:

You think "there are many reasons why some people have not paid taxes"? Apparently Orenthal & the others don't have valid reasons, or the Franchise Tax Board would not be publishing their names on a list.

Here is information relative to the list, from the link I provided:


California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 19195 directs the Franchise Tax Board to publish an annual list of the top 250 taxpayers with liened state income tax delinquencies greater than $100,000. Before we publish the list, we mail each taxpayer who may potentially be on the list, a certified letter, return receipt requested. The letter provides them an opportunity to voluntarily settle their liability.

To avoid appearing on the list or to be removed from the published list, taxpayers must do one of the following:

Pay the liability in full
Establish an installment agreement
Enter into an Offer in Compromise
Substantiate a bankruptcy filing
Publishing delinquent taxpayers on the list does not prevent us from pursuing other collection actions.

[socaldiva]

*snip*And oj was concerned with who nicole hung out with????
Huh, I think the one's with the drug problems are OJ, his girlfriend and her new drug buddy.
IMO

Dr Phil said that OJ accused Nicole of doing all of the bad things he was doing & Pablo said he thinks OJ is saying in a round about way, if I did it, she deserved it. Problem is, his accusations were unfounded. Looks like he might have the real deal with Prody & her problems though.

[weezer]

Dr Phil said that OJ accused Nicole of doing all of the bad things he was doing & Pablo said he thinks OJ is saying in a round about way, if I did it, she deserved it. Problem is, his accusations were unfounded. Looks like he might have the real deal with Prody & her problems though.

I think it is scarey the way his life with Prody is so very like his life with Nicole -- police calls for domestic violence, threats, stalking, etc.

[socaldiva]

I think it is scarey the way his life with Prody is so very like his life with Nicole -- police calls for domestic violence, threats, stalking, etc.

It is scarey & Prody must have nerves of steel. I don't know how she sleeps :o

[weezer]

It is scarey & Prody must have nerves of steel. I don't know how she sleeps :o

me either -- maybe that's where the drugs come in?

[socaldiva]

me either -- maybe that's where the drugs come in?

I was just thinking the same thing!

[Heyes]

It is scarey & Prody must have nerves of steel. I don't know how she sleeps :o

From what I've seen she doesn't look like she sleeps well. I saw a video of her back when she and simpson first met and she seems to have aged 20 years. I wish she would get out of there and save herself but maybe the killers lifestyle is more important to her. :shrug:
IMO

[socaldiva]

From what I've seen she doesn't look like she sleeps well. I saw a video of her back when she and simpson first met and she seems to have aged 20 years. I wish she would get out of there and save herself but maybe the killers lifestyle is more important to her. :shrug:
IMO

I know what you mean, I've noticed the same thing. She looked so much better back then. She looked healthy & pretty. She looks kind of hagard now & her chest is just frightening :eek:

[bobaugust]

tv
i think it was oj's doctor that testified that oj was not in the physical shape many have assumed he was when he was playing football.That he suffers from severe arthritic knees which is evident when you watch him walk.It has also been reported that Ron was a big strong young man himself so i am not sure that ron was some weakling which leads me to believe that there may have been two killers at bundy as Wagner proposes.imo
martin II

martin II, Simpson's doctor never said any such thing.

July 14, 1995, Dr. Huizenga

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there any finding made by you in--covered in whatever item no. 1 is which dealt with any physical limitation of Mr. Simpson's which in your opinion would have prevented him from murdering two human beings using a single-edged knife on June 12th of 1994?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Simpson's doctor never said any such thing.

July 14, 1995, Dr. Huizenga

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there any finding made by you in--covered in whatever item no. 1 is which dealt with any physical limitation of Mr. Simpson's which in your opinion would have prevented him from murdering two human beings using a single-edged knife on June 12th of 1994?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.

bobaugust


We are talking about two different doctors.
I cannot remember his name now but will look for it.
This doctor testified that of had serious knee problems.
I remember him saying that if he asked oj to stand on a chair and asked him to jump to the floor he would not be able to do so.
Now i assume you have read that also but tomorrow i will look for it unless you save me the trouble by admiting that you read that testimony also.

martin II

[martin II]

bob

I believe it was Christian Reichardt that testified to that.Maby he was not oj's official doctor.
martin II

[martin II]

bib
This is testimony of R Walsh the video exercise expert on oj's condition
Second part is testimony of ojs doctor Dr Huizenga
I will llok for the 'CHAIR" comment later
martin II



THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. What kind of injuries did you become aware of?

MR. WALSH: Umm, his knee, his hand, shoulder. Can I keep going?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WALSH: He talked about a sore lower back.

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. WALSH: Can I keep going?

THE COURT: What did you personally become aware of through your own observations?

MR. WALSH: Well, initially, he was sitting. And so when--

THE COURT: Well, I assume this relationship went on through making the video.

MR. WALSH: Well, I thought we were talking about the first time.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WALSH: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You can kind of

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

MR. WALSH: Okay. I became aware eventually of his knee, his back, his lower back in particular, his shoulder. He also spoke of some ankle problems

-----------



MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you had this initial contact over a period of time with Mr. Simpson, did you have any doubt as to whether or not he was the right candidate for this video?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Was there any question in your mind about whether OJ Simpson was the candidate for this, proper candidate?

MR. DARDEN: It's irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALSH: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what were your doubts, sir, if any?

MR. WALSH: I thought he was too physically limited to be the co-host with me.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you think that?

MR. WALSH: Because I knew the type of tape that I was making needed, you know, not somebody real, real physically fit, but it needed someone who had the ability to at least be mobile laterally, forward and back up, using upper body muscle groups and so forth.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you notice anything about Mr. Simpson's ability to move laterally or from side to side?

MR. WALSH: It was--it was pretty limited.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, was there--now, at some point, despite your reservations about Mr. Simpson's abilities here, did you proceed with the project with him?

MR. WALSH: Yes, we did.

MR. COCHRAN: And this particular video that we've seen or seen parts of, that was shot during the month of May of 1994?

MR. WALSH: Correct. The actual shooting day of the--most of the video that you've seen has been on May 27th of--excuse me--May 25th, 1994. We tried to shoot the exercise segment in one day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And any particular reason why you

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

MR. WALSH: Okay. So everybody has a spot. And so you kind of stay right there. And all of a sudden, I looked at OJ, and he was kind of coming at me like he was carrying a football, kind of like this (Indicating), which is kind of just moving slow. And as he got near me like he--I just kind of took my elbow like a football player would and kind of hit him, but very, very lightly.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you--you struck his body at that point?

MR. WALSH: Like his elbow or shoulder or arm or something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see his reaction when that happened?

MR. WALSH: He started literally flying. I mean not flying in the air, but he started jumping around and hobbling and he started screaming, "My knee, my knee."

----------

[martin II]

Page two
OJ's Doctor on his physical condition on 6/15

martin II

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you notice any inflammation in the hand area?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe that to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

DR. HUIZENGA: He had multiple areas that were enlarged, these bony enlargements on his joints. Basically--and here I will refer to my original scribblings. When I saw him originally I just kind of got out a pen and went around his hand and this was his right hand, and basically this joint, right here, (Indicating), was enlarged, this was enlarged, this was enlarged, this, this, this, this bony kind of enlargements that could have been from a degenerative joint disease or old fractures or trauma or getting it stepped on too many times.

MR. SHAPIRO: Which hand were you referring to?

DR. HUIZENGA: This is the right hand.

----------

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe slowly to the jury your findings on Mr. Simpson's right hand.

DR. HUIZENGA: His right-hand had multiple joint enlargements. Basically bony overgrowths located on the proximal joint of his thumb, this proximal phalangeal joint on his right index finger, the proximal joint on his third right finger, both the distal interphalangeal joint and the proximal interphalangeal joint on his fourth ring finger, and again distal interphalangeal joint and proximal interphalangeal joint swelling and hypertrophy on the fifth right finger.

MR. SHAPIRO: How about the left hand. Would you go through the same demonstration.

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did. Here is the left hand and again enlargement of this joint right here, the proximal thumb finger joint, the third pip proximal interphalangeal joint and the fourth both the proximal and the distal interphalangeal joint and again on the fifth finger just the proximal interphalangeal joint.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what did you observe of those joints?

DR. HUIZENGA: Those joints were swollen with bony overgrowths signifying some type of trauma or old fractures or inflammatory or osteoarthritic disease.

-----------

MR. SHAPIRO: When you saw him on the 15th did you have any opinion as to how these conditions would affect his mobility?

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, he was visibly limping to my eye, and my initial impression was that it was mainly the osteoarthritis or the wear and tear disease. I wasn't fully appraised of some of the background. I hadn't got all his old records. But I think that really he is limited, specifically lower extremities, by his arthritis, and he certainly was limited to a way on the 15th of June where he would have a very difficult time moving quickly in his lower extremities.

MR. SHAPIRO: This is not a condition, in your opinion, that came on within two days, is it?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't believe that is--I think that these are long-lived symptoms. There can be some fluctuation, as I said, based on overuse, based on certain other variable, including the use of medications, but generally speaking, at the level of osteoarthritis he has it becomes a persistent daily thing and not like early arthritis where you have some, you know, totally symptom free days. He was not of that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there any medication that Mr. Simpson was taking, to your knowledge, for these conditions?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What medications?

DR. HUIZENGA: He would take as needed ibuprofen.

MR. SHAPIRO: Which is?

DR. HUIZENGA: 800 milligrams which is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. It is knock-off of aspirin essentially. He was not taking a huge dose of this. He was not taking enough that most rheumatologists would think that that was a treating level of drug to really ameliorate rheumatoid arthritis but basically just to occasionally knock down symptoms. And in arrears we found out--I found out because there was my first visit with him that he had also been put on sulfasalazine which is a disease modifying drug for rheumatoid arthritis, but that in fact he had stopped taking that about a month prior to my seeing him.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know--did you make a recommendation as to whether he should re--begin the course of sulfasalazine?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes. Once I got to know him and collated all his past records and re-saw him on subsequent visits, including in the jail, and determined that at least a portion of his problem was a flare of rheumatoid arthritis, we did make that recommendation.

MR. SHAPIRO: And was that followed, to the best of your knowledge?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you do a visual examination head to toe of Mr. Simpson?



MR. SHAPIRO: Did you make any--did you find anything of significance in the examination of the left profile of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I found no findings of significance.

MR. SHAPIRO: Specifically did you find any evidence of bruising, scratches, cuts or abrasions?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would that be the same for your observations of the front view?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe your findings regarding the profile of the right side of the face.

THE COURT: This appears to be right neck and jaw area.

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.

DR. HUIZENGA: The right side of the face was likewise completely clear. The right neck and jaw area also showed no evidence of any acute recent onset trauma; scrapes, scratches, bruising.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you agree that as of the 15th in the entire area above the neck of Mr. Simpson there was no evidence of any physical contact?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: By someone else?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you observe the torso area of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And is this the way he appeared when you conducted your visual examination on the 15th?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe your findings to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please, regarding the front torso area of Mr. Simpson.

DR. HUIZENGA: The front torso area on the 15th revealed no evidence of any bruises, scrapes or scratches of any sort. There were old scars and I believe on the upper right he had a little keloiding dark area on his upper chest, but no, no acute injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there any evidence of any recent injuries whatsoever to the front torso of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.

MR. SHAPIRO: May I direct your attention to the back of Mr. Simpson. Is this the way he appeared on the 15th

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



MR. SHAPIRO: What about his mobility on the 15th? Do you have an opinion as to his ability for lateral movement?

DR. HUIZENGA: I think his ability for lateral movement would definitely be diminished based on his left knee and right angle problem the day I saw him on the 15th.

MR. SHAPIRO: And would you expect that he was in relatively the same condition on the 12th?

DR. HUIZENGA: I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, are there certain types of activities somebody with the conditions that Mr. Simpson suffers from be capable of doing?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there are.

MR. SHAPIRO: What type of activities would you opine that he is capable of doing?

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, relatively sedentary things since his cardio vascular shape wasn't really that good that really don't need, you know, quick movement on that knee and of course over the period of that time his ankle which was bothering him at that time.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you have been around athletes?

[bobaugust]

Page two
OJ's Doctor on his physical condition on 6/15

martin II



July 14, 1995, Dr. Huizenga

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there any finding made by you in--covered in whatever item no. 1 is which dealt with any physical limitation of Mr. Simpson's which in your opinion would have prevented him from murdering two human beings using a single-edged knife on June 12th of 1994?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If the pictures had been of Russell Crowe, Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts would you feel the need to research the organization?

Yes, if Russell Crow was in the news again and comments made abou him similar to those made about Simpson and the criminal jury were posted on this board.

[William Anthony]

so you think they're going to post the pictures of people no one knows? get over yourself. :D

If you are going to post pictures of celebrities that owe taxes, then it is only fair that you post them all. If you are able to get over yourself, don't you think that is true? Why the personal attack when I question the selection of a particular set of pictures? Is this not a forum open to questions?

[William Anthony]

There was information that the tax franchise would publish a list of delinquent tax payers who had liens and owed over a certain amount. I think we all understand that a list is different from a picture. Additionally, there are discussions being held on Simpson alleged bad acts that have not been proven in a court of law as wells as issues in the criminal trial. I am in no way suggesting that anyone should curtail their discussions, as this is evidence that Simpson may never receive a fair trial on the charges that have again placed him in the news.

[martin II]

If you are going to post pictures of celebrities that owe taxes, then it is only fair that you post them all. If you are able to get over yourself, don't you think that is true? Why the personal attack when I question the selection of a particular set of pictures? Is this not a forum open to questions?

Some on the list owed $15,000,000 or more, why not post their pictures.
DW has been fighting with the IRS for some years as it had something to do with her ex manager accused of stealing her money.
martin II

[martin II]

There was information that the tax franchise would publish a list of delinquent tax payers who had liens and owed over a certain amount. I think we all understand that a list is different from a picture. Additionally, there are discussions being held on Simpson alleged bad acts that have not been proven in a court of law as wells as issues in the criminal trial. I am in no way suggesting that anyone should curtail their discussions, as this is evidence that Simpson may never receive a fair trial on the charges that have again placed him in the news.

william
what is strange is that there were about 5-6 people involved in that hotel caper. Two with guns.Two with stolen merchandise and one that set the whole event up and then illegally taped the event.The two that had the stolen merchandise have not been charged.The person that did the taping has not been charged and the two that had the guns have been offered and received plea agreement to testify against OJ. I believe others will be offered plea agreements to testify against oj.

It is obvious that LE is only interested in getting a conviction against oj. Not in prosecuting the law evenly.IMO
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

bob

I believe it was Christian Reichardt that testified to that.Maby he was not oj's official doctor.
martin II

I don't think Christian Reichardt was Orenthal's doctor in any capacity. I don't think he was/is a doctor.

[tv]

I don't think Christian Reichardt was Orenthal's doctor in any capacity. I don't think he was/is a doctor.Isn't he a chiropractor? Not a medical doctor?

[socaldiva]

Isn't he a chiropractor? Not a medical doctor?

Yes, now that you mention it, that's what I recall also.

eta: & I believe his only association with Orenthal was that he was Faye Resnick's boyfriend. He never treated Simpson in any capacity.

[tv]

Yes, now that you mention it, that's what I recall also.He was engaged to Faye Resnick at the time of the murders. He made a statement to Barbara Walters after the murders backing up Faye's account of OJ Simpson threatening to kill Nicole in a phone call with her. He also testified to this in the civil trial.

[tv]

Yes, if Russell Crow was in the news again and comments made abou him similar to those made about Simpson and the criminal jury were posted on this board.I thought your concern was about all three pictures being together not just the one of OJ Simpson. Did I misunderstand?

[martin II]

He was engaged to Faye Resnick at the time of the murders. He made a statement to Barbara Walters after the murders backing up Faye's account of OJ Simpson threatening to kill Nicole in a phone call with her. He also testified to this in the civil trial.

tv

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Reichardt, what is your occupation sir?

DR. REICHARDT: I'm a doctor of chiropractic.

MR. COCHRAN: For how long have you been a doctor of chiropractic?

DR. REICHARDT: I graduated in 1983.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you graduate from, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: National college of chiropractic in Chicago.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you start to practice thereafter?

DR. REICHARDT: I practiced for one year in Chicago and then moved to California.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you presently in the active practice of chiropractic practice here in southern California?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I am.

He treated oj for his knees "as a friend free of charge."

martin II

[William Anthony]

I thought your concern was about all three pictures being together not just the one of OJ Simpson. Did I misunderstand?

Yes, I think you did misunderstand. My concern is about all three of the particular photos chosen. If there were comments made about an all White jury that let Crow go and comments made that the jury was biased after hearing evidence a Black cop, who had spoken of burning all Whites had found a glove that did not fit Crow, and Crow was eventually found liable for causing one of the deaths in a civil trial by a predominately White jury and failed to pay the judgment and subsequently became involved in an endeavor to regain his alleged property, which resulted in robbery charges, and an article published the picture of two other White stars along with Crow's, but did not publish pictures of anyone of any other race while admitting there were other stars who owed back taxes, then I would question whether the people who wrote the article were full of crow. How did you like the length of that sentence, :)? I would question why only those particular pictures were published. Does that clear it up for you, :).

[William Anthony]

william
what is strange is that there were about 5-6 people involved in that hotel caper. Two with guns.Two with stolen merchandise and one that set the whole event up and then illegally taped the event.The two that had the stolen merchandise have not been charged.The person that did the taping has not been charged and the two that had the guns have been offered and received plea agreement to testify against OJ. I believe others will be offered plea agreements to testify against oj.

It is obvious that LE is only interested in getting a conviction against oj. Not in prosecuting the law evenly.IMO
MARTIN ii

Yes, Martin,

That is one of the ethical considerations invovled in plea bargaining, imho.

[tv]

tv

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Reichardt, what is your occupation sir?

DR. REICHARDT: I'm a doctor of chiropractic.

MR. COCHRAN: For how long have you been a doctor of chiropractic?

DR. REICHARDT: I graduated in 1983.

MR. COCHRAN: Where did you graduate from, sir?

DR. REICHARDT: National college of chiropractic in Chicago.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you start to practice thereafter?

DR. REICHARDT: I practiced for one year in Chicago and then moved to California.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you presently in the active practice of chiropractic practice here in southern California?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes, I am.

He treated oj for his knees "as a friend free of charge."

martin II

martin, I said he's a chiropractor. Do you have testimony from him that he treated OJ Simpson? I haven't been able to find that.

[tv]

Yes, I think you did misunderstand. My concern is about all three of the particular photos chosen. If there were comments made about an all White jury that let Crow go and comments made that the jury was biased after hearing evidence a Black cop, who had spoken of burning all Whites had found a glove that did not fit Crow, and Crow was eventually found liable for causing one of the deaths in a civil trial by a predominately White jury and failed to pay the judgment and subsequently became involved in an endeavor to regain his alleged property, which resulted in robbery charges, and an article published the picture of two other White stars along with Crow's, but did not publish pictures of anyone of any other race while admitting there were other stars who owed back taxes, then I would question whether the people who wrote the article were full of crow. How did you like the length of that sentence, :)? I would question why only those particular pictures were published. Does that clear it up for you, :).

Wonderful sentence, William. Awe inspiring as a matter of fact. :) IMO you're overthinking this whole thing. I really don't think anyone would have noticed if the pictures had all been of white people no matter what the circumstances. I think you're imagining a hidden agenda where one doesn't exist. Thank you for clearing it up. :)

[kjb19500]

Re Martin IIs posted about OJ's physical condition:

Odd that with the severe arthritic knees and bad back he was able to fly to Chicago and elsewhere to play golf several times a month. Golf isn't really too good for either of these problems.

"I am in no way suggesting that anyone should curtail their discussions, as this is evidence that Simpson may never receive a fair trial on the charges that have again placed him in the news."

It sounds to me that what you're saying is if Simpson is convicted in Las Vegas, it's not because he's guilty of the charges but because the jury is tainted. I think that's the attitude a lot of people have about the murder trial, but if that's the case the People didn't get a fair trial.

[tv]

Re Martin IIs posted about OJ's physical condition:

Odd that with the severe arthritic knees and bad back he was able to fly to Chicago and elsewhere to play golf several times a month. Golf isn't really too good for either of these problems.

"I am in no way suggesting that anyone should curtail their discussions, as this is evidence that Simpson may never receive a fair trial on the charges that have again placed him in the news."

It sounds to me that what you're saying is if Simpson is convicted in Las Vegas, it's not because he's guilty of the charges but because the jury is tainted. I think that's the attitude a lot of people have about the murder trial, but if that's the case the People didn't get a fair trial.

Excellent point! :beer:

[martin II]

Re Martin IIs posted about OJ's physical condition:

Odd that with the severe arthritic knees and bad back he was able to fly to Chicago and elsewhere to play golf several times a month. Golf isn't really too good for either of these problems.

"I am in no way suggesting that anyone should curtail their discussions, as this is evidence that Simpson may never receive a fair trial on the charges that have again placed him in the news."

It sounds to me that what you're saying is if Simpson is convicted in Las Vegas, it's not because he's guilty of the charges but because the jury is tainted. I think that's the attitude a lot of people have about the murder trial, but if that's the case the People didn't get a fair trial.

kjb19500

The doctor dissageree with your statement.

I did not post all of the doctors testimony but included in some that i did not post, the doctor does list the activities that oj could do. Golf was one of them
that the doctor said he could do.

I posted what the doctor testified to was the results of his examination of oj.

If you dissagree with the results of the doctors findings, that is your right.
martin II

[martin II]

martin, I said he's a chiropractor. Do you have testimony from him that he treated OJ Simpson? I haven't been able to find that.

he said in his testimony that he treated oj for his knees 'AS A FRIEND AT NO CHARGE" see the last line of my last post. he was not oj's MD.

[tv]

he said in his testimony that he treated oj for his knees 'AS A FRIEND AT NO CHARGE" see the last line of my last post. he was not oj's MD.I was asking because that wasn't quoted testimony. It appeared to be commentary. Did he actually say he treated OJ Simpson as a friend at no charge?

[martin II]

I was asking because that wasn't quoted testimony. It appeared to be commentary. Did he actually say he treated OJ Simpson as a friend at no charge?


tv
He treated oj for his knees "as a friend free of charge."

His words are in quotes.Sorry you did not understand.
martin II

[martin II]

tv
Here are his exact responses to some quesitons.
The one you are interestred in is at the bottom

MR. DARDEN: And he was upset because Nicole Brown didn't want to see him any longer; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: No, that is not correct.





MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you tell the officers that the Defendant had been upset because Nicole Brown had changed her mind about having a relationship with him?

DR. REICHARDT: She changed her mind frequently about having a relationship with him or not having a relationship with him, and that is what he was upset about.



MR. DARDEN: In fact, the Defendant and Nicole Brown, they had a number--they had an off and on relationship on a number of occasions; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Sometimes she broke up with him?

DR. REICHARDT: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Sometimes he broke up with her?

DR. REICHARDT: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And it went like that for a couple of years, right?

DR. REICHARDT: The last year and a half that I was privy to, correct.



MR. DARDEN: You were also the Defendant's chiropractor; is that correct?

DR. REICHARDT: I have seen him as a friend, yeah; not a former business arrangement.

MR. DARDEN: You have treated him?

DR. REICHARDT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: For free?

DR. REICHARDT: Absolutely.

-----------------
He did not give the answer in the exact quoted form i posted. But his answer is the same.

[tv]

tv
He treated oj for his knees "as a friend free of charge."

His words are in quotes.Sorry you did not understand.
martin IIOkay, but it doesn't say what he did for him. I've read that he was weaning him off sterioids. Since he gave him $5000 at one time I wouldn't say it was for free.

[martin II]

Okay, but it doesn't say what he did for him. I've read that he was weaning him off sterioids. Since he gave him $5000 at one time I wouldn't say it was for free.

If that is in his testrimony i did not see it. I have no idea as to why oj would have been taking steriods IF HE WAS. He was not playing ball.

Exactly where did you read that he was weaning oj off of steriors?

He and oj were business partners so money between them is not unusual.

If he said he treated him for free he treated him for free unless you have proof that he lied on the stand.

martin II

[martin II]

Okay, but it doesn't say what he did for him. I've read that he was weaning him off sterioids. Since he gave him $5000 at one time I wouldn't say it was for free.

he said he treated him for his knee problems that were obvious to him. He was not asked specific treatment quesitons by Darden.
martin II

[tv]

If that is in his testrimony i did not see it. I have no idea as to why oj would have been taking steriods IF HE WAS. He was not playing ball.

Exactly where did you read that he was weaning oj off of steriors?

He and oj were business partners so money between them is not unusual.

If he said he treated him for free he treated him for free unless you have proof that he lied on the stand.

martin III've read about the steroids several times but don't know how true it is. If he was taking sterioids it may have been for his arthritis. There are different kinds of steriods and different reasons for using them other than body building. I don't know if CR lied about treating him or not but I think he did tell some lies. Daniel Petrocelli was very skilled at getting him to tell the truth.

[martin II]

Dr Reichardt testified that before the murders he and oj were in business to develop exercise quipment and that the making of a prototype prior to the video was required. So i would asume the $5,000 was oj's share for that cost.
There would be nothing wrong with oj paying him for treatment so there would be no reason to say it was free if it was not.

exactly where did you read he was weaning oj off of anything??

martin II

[tv]

Dr Reichardt testified that before the murders he and oj were in business to develop exercise quipment and that the making of a prototype prior to the video was required. So i would asume the $5,000 was oj's share for that cost.
There would be nothing wrong with oj paying him for treatment so there would be no reason to say it was free if it was not.

exactly where did you read he was weaning oj off of anything??

martin IILet me see if I can find it. Be right back.

[martin II]

I've read about the steroids several times but don't know how true it is. If he was taking sterioids it may have been for his arthritis. There are different kinds of steriods and different reasons for using them other than body building. I don't know if CR lied about treating him or not but I think he did tell some lies. Daniel Petrocelli was very skilled at getting him to tell the truth.

Oj simpson had arthritis and to some degree RA which causes massive inflamation when a flareup happens.A few upward ticks in ones CRP can cause lots of pain without notice. The normal treatment for that is Prednisone, ibuprofen and some pain medication all legal from any pharmacy.

For prednisone the doctor gives the patient a prescription plan of decreasing dossage by month until he is off unless a flare up occure. CR did not seem to be hiding anything and in the testimony i read so i guess that is just a matter of personal opinion.
martin II

[tv]

Oj simpson had arthritis and to some degree RA which causes massive inflamation when a flareup happens.A few upward ticks in ones CRP can cause lots of pain without notice. The normal treatment for that is Prednisone, ibuprofen and some pain medication all legal from any pharmacy.

For prednisone the doctor gives the patient a prescription plan of decreasing dossage by month until he is off unless a flare up occure. CR did not seem to be hiding anything and in the testimony i read so i guess that is just a matter of personal opinion.
martin IImartin, here is one of the links to someone's theory. Please don't say I stated this as fact because I'm not doing that. I'm supplying the link only because you requested it. It's considered gossip.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231034,00.html

[tv]

Oj simpson had arthritis and to some degree RA which causes massive inflamation when a flareup happens.A few upward ticks in ones CRP can cause lots of pain without notice. The normal treatment for that is Prednisone, ibuprofen and some pain medication all legal from any pharmacy.

For prednisone the doctor gives the patient a prescription plan of decreasing dossage by month until he is off unless a flare up occure. CR did not seem to be hiding anything and in the testimony i read so i guess that is just a matter of personal opinion.
martin IISo you believe 100% of everything that CR testified to?

[martin II]

Dr. C.Reichardt AND Dr. Huizenga both evaluated oj for the same problems. Huizenga talked about medicine and testified about oj's blood results. No one, prosecution or defense mentioned anything about oj being on any streiods(sp).Also le did a drug screen on oj on 6/13 and the only thing they found was traces of marijuana. no steroids.

martin II

[martin II]

So you believe 100% of everything that CR testified to?

Since i never said that, how can you post the above which assumes I said i believe 100% what he has said.

That is a silly question and sounds like you are trying to bait me.

martin II

[martin II]

martin, here is one of the links to someone's theory. Please don't say I stated this as fact because I'm not doing that. I'm supplying the link only because you requested it. It's considered gossip.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231034,00.html



tv

I pass.

i though maby you were referring to a legitimate sources when you said CR was weaning oj off of steriods.

So were you spreading gossip??

haha

martin II

[wind149]

He is gonna go down in flames on this case against him. No one in Vegas is impressed with him and so far has not received preferential treatment by anyone. The tapes proved to me the men were nervous about him, even scared of him and that was a brilliant move on their part because the law has iron-clad evidence against him. His voice is clearly threatening violence and his high priced mouthpiece is gonna be hard pressed to swing that one that one by the jury. He had no intentions of buying back his stuff, he think he is such a big shot, he brought gun slinging hoods with him with the sole intention of stealing that stuff. He is such an asswipe and that whole murder case against him was such a screwed up investigation. Johnny Cockroach putting Mark Furhman on trial instead of OJ, I mean, I can't believe that the jury was so swayed by this POS has-been football player. The glove. Well DUH! Leather shrinks when it gets wet like with blood?? How do you explain Ron and Nicole's blood in the Bronco? His high speed suicide crap stunt? The cuts on his hands? The limo driver bangs on the door, does not hear anyone, and here comes OJ from the back of the house, out of breath, sweaty, and tells him he will be with him in a minute? The jury was sequestered for nine long months. The LA riots were still fresh in people's minds. The Rodney King thing which sparked the riots. He was this great football player. and I am sure they did not want another riot if they found him guilty and there probably would have been with the low-life mentality. No one took into consideration that this loser had been violent with Nicole several times. We all saw her bruised face. He attacked his first wife with a hammer. He clearly has anger issues and his big over bloated ego could not take the fact she did not want him anymore, I believe night after night, he sat there watching her house to see if other guys were coming over, he was that jealous. When Ron came to the house to return her glasses, he lost it. They were stabbed many times, A lot of rage there and Cockroach wanted you to believe this was a random act by a stranger. The verdict came in just as I was about to start my tour of duty at the Sheriff's dept. The state police were talking about it on their private frequency and I informed my guys and they were all disgusted to say the least. That trial cost the taxpayer's of CA close to $20 million dollars and I hope to Christ the trial in Vegas won't cost that much. As for the Goldman's I cry every time I see Fred. Some people think he is a money grubbing fool, but he was awarded a civil amount and you know he much would have loved it if OJ went to San Quentin instead of Miami and he is entitled to the money. I smile every time he even takes a buck out of that maggot's hands. A judge in Fla likes him! That poor man has had to endure his son's brutal murder by an egomaniac and then he just flips him the bird over the money. The guy is evil to the core and I am hoping this time he gets stopped in his tracks, goes to prison for a very long time and Fred takes the fillings right out of his teeth and he has nothing when he gets out except for a $25 check for making license plates and a bus ticket. I hate this guy for what he did, and he made a mockery of the justice system and it is high time these so called "celebrities" pay the same price the average Joe would have to.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

I pass.

So were you spreading gossip??

haha

martin II

You pass before opening & reading the link? That's funny. haha

[Big Ben]

If he had been on the up and up he would have informed the police that someone had his stolen property and they would have helped him get it back. Ergo, the floor is freshly painted and Simpson has two walls to his back.

The Police helping O.J.! LOL, That's a hoot! "To Protect and To Serve" right?

What if by chance it is simply another fraudulent script, fraught with holes just like the first Simpson saga. For Example,

1. What if the gun toters were licensed to carry concealed weapons?

There goes one part of the armed robbery.

2. If licensed to carry weapons and they thought they may face imminent danger because they might encounter convicted felons behind the closed doors.

Were there any fugitives behind the closed doors, if there were, there goes another part of the armed robbery charge.

3. Did the property actually belong to Mr. Simpson? Had it been stolen from him? If so, how does a prosecutor make a plausible case about someone robbing or stealing their own property?

4. Kidnapping?????????

This appears to be a vindictive over charging of the defendant. I doubt that even the most vindictive O.J. juror wants to argue against the rest of the jury in attempt to convict Simpson on this charge.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if Simpson may have been envious of all the attention received by Paris Hilton due to her jail stint, and he and the "intelligence" cronies devised another tale of Othello for solely publicity purposes and public consumption alone.

I speculate that he walks!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The Police helping O.J.! LOL, That's a hoot! "To Protect and To Serve" right?


I speculate that he walks!

Orenthal was given preferential treatment by LE many times before & even said that he was treated fairly by them. Do you know something he doesn't?

He may very well walk this time, but as we've seen in the past, just because he walks, doesn't mean that he's not guilty of doing what he's charged with.

[William Anthony]

Wonderful sentence, William. Awe inspiring as a matter of fact. :) IMO you're overthinking this whole thing. I really don't think anyone would have noticed if the pictures had all been of white people no matter what the circumstances. I think you're imagining a hidden agenda where one doesn't exist. Thank you for clearing it up. :)

You may be right but that should not stop one from questioning the motivation of the publisher. I think people would notice and correctly, if the only pictures shown were of Whites. Prejudice is both covert and overt, imho. Are you saying that pictures of Whites who allegedly commit crimes are less noticable than pictures of Blacks, :)? Do not forget that I am aspiring to be a lawyer, smile.

[tv]

Since i never said that, how can you post the above which assumes I said i believe 100% what he has said.

That is a silly question and sounds like you are trying to bait me.

martin IIBait you for what reason? I'm wondering how much credibility you think Christian Reichardt has. Don't answer -- makes no difference to me.

[tv]

tv

I pass.

i though maby you were referring to a legitimate sources when you said CR was weaning oj off of steriods.

So were you spreading gossip??

haha

martin III told you it wasn't substantiated. You requested the link. Look at it or not, it's your decision.

[tv]

You pass before opening & reading the link? That's funny. hahaHe probably passed this up the same way he passes up your posts...HaHa! :biggrin:

[tv]

You may be right but that should not stop one from questioning the motivation of the publisher. I think people would notice and correctly, if the only pictures shown were of Whites. Prejudice is both covert and overt, imho. Are you saying that pictures of Whites who allegedly commit crimes are less noticable than pictures of Blacks, :)? Do not forget that I am aspiring to be a lawyer, smile.
William, in my opinion a group of whites would be just that...a set of three pictures of celebrities that owe taxes. What you see is a set of three pictures of black celebrities that owe taxes.

That's all I'm going to say about this because I really don't like to discuss race in this case. It always ends up causing hard feelings and that's not my intention.

Nope, I haven't forgotten that you are an aspiring attorney. :)

[William Anthony]

William, in my opinion a group of whites would be just that...a set of three pictures of celebrities that owe taxes. What you see is a set of three pictures of black celebrities that owe taxes.

That's all I'm going to say about this because I really don't like to discuss race in this case. It always ends up causing hard feelings and that's not my intention.

Nope, I haven't forgotten that you are an aspiring attorney. :)

I think you are right that a discussion of race causes hard feelings. I ask myself why. The discussion often leads to self reflection, which, imho, maybe the cause of such emotions. I think we all to some degree harbor racial prejudice and until we are able to admit it and stive to overcome it, the discussion will always cause hard feelings. I think there is a vast difference between racial prejudice and racism.

[tv]

I think you are right that a discussion of race causes hard feelings. I ask myself why. The discussion often leads to self reflection, which, imho, maybe the cause of such emotions. I think we all to some degree harbor racial prejudice and until we are able to admit it and stive to overcome it, the discussion will always cause hard feelings. I think there is a vast difference between racial prejudice and racism.You may be right about a difference between racism and racial prejudice. I have chosen not to discuss racial issues related to this case because I get tired of being misunderstood and spending most of the discussion explaining what I meant and why it wasn't meant to be prejudicial. The OJ Simpson charity contribution discussion cured me once and for all. :)

[William Anthony]

You may be right about a difference between racism and racial prejudice. I have chosen not to discuss racial issues related to this case because I get tired of being misunderstood and spending most of the discussion explaining what I meant and why it wasn't meant to be prejudicial. The OJ Simpson charity contribution discussion cured me once and for all. :)

I did not pay much, in fact, very little attention to the discussion. I understand your choice and the reasons why. I do have a problem with posts that smell of racial overtones but, when asked about the post, the poster does not want to discuss race. A most recent example, imho, was the post about the Black mafia, which was made in connection with a post on mafia control of Vegas. I have no problem discussing any subject related to this case in a civil, open and honest manner. I think in your case there could have been a misunderstanding but in some cases, judging on the history or the posters' posts, there is no misunderstanding as to their intent, imho.

I have been accused of making racial posts, because I post on America's history, which is some manner have a bearing on the concept of judicial equality and the desire to attain it. I understand how things can get misconstrued. I sincerely hope that I can be proven wrong about my opinion of some posters' posts. I do believe that some are prejudice and do not know it, while others know it but will not admit it.

[weezer]

*Snipped* "Page two
OJ's Doctor on his physical condition on 6/15. . .

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't believe that is--I think that these are long-lived symptoms. There can be some fluctuation, as I said, based on overuse, . . ."

So we can deduce that on June 15th, orenthal james simpson was still suffering the physical effects of having butchered two human beings. Thanks for the info.

imo

[Big Ben]

Orenthal was given preferential treatment by LE many times before & even said that he was treated fairly by them. Do you know something he doesn't?

He may very well walk this time, but as we've seen in the past, just because he walks, doesn't mean that he's not guilty of doing what he's charged with.

The key word you used was "before".

Ah, yeah! I probably know a few things he doesn't.

".....doesn't mean that he's not guilty of doing what he's charged with." Only in America! My country tis of thee,.....Sweet land of liberty,.... of thee I sing!

[socaldiva]

*snip*The key word you used was "before".

Ah, yeah! I probably know a few things he doesn't.



Wrong. He said that he was treated fairly by LE after the murders also as well. Didn't you listen to tapes of him in the Bronco, when he was being driven around by Cowlings?

You claim to know more about his life than he does? Ok.....

[Big Ben]

Wrong. He said that he was treated fairly by LE after the murders also as well. Didn't you listen to tapes of him in the Bronco, when he was being driven around by Cowlings?

You claim to know more about his life than he does? Ok.....

Q: You claim to know more about his life than he does?

A: I didn't realize that you intended for me to answer the portion of your question written in invisble ink! Be clear in the wording of your questions.

Q: Wrong. He said that he was treated fairly by LE after the murders also as well. Didn't you listen to him in the Bronco?

A: Doesn't the Venus Fly Trap emit a seductive odor that beguiles and relaxes its intended victim, the fly. The seduction is enough for the fly to think that it's safe to be in its' midst without a concern about harmful intent? I have alleged to my peers that Simpson's mind, on certain subjects, is about as gullible as the unsuspecting fly.

[weezer]

Q: You claim to know more about his life than he does?

A: I didn't realize that you intended for me to answer the portion of your question written in invisble ink! Be clear in the wording of your questions.

Q: Wrong. He said that he was treated fairly by LE after the murders also as well. Didn't you listen to him in the Bronco?

A: Doesn't the Venus Fly Trap emit a seductive odor that beguiles and relaxes its intended victim, the fly. The seduction is enough for the fly to think that it's safe to be in its' midst without a concern about harmful intent? I have alleged to my peers that Simpson's mind, on certain subjects, is about as gullible as the unsuspecting fly.

there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

[martin II]

there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

your post explains nothing but that you know how to call oj simpson names.

martin II

[martin II]

I did not pay much, in fact, very little attention to the discussion. I understand your choice and the reasons why. I do have a problem with posts that smell of racial overtones but, when asked about the post, the poster does not want to discuss race. A most recent example, imho, was the post about the Black mafia, which was made in connection with a post on mafia control of Vegas. I have no problem discussing any subject related to this case in a civil, open and honest manner. I think in your case there could have been a misunderstanding but in some cases, judging on the history or the posters' posts, there is no misunderstanding as to their intent, imho.

I have been accused of making racial posts, because I post on America's history, which is some manner have a bearing on the concept of judicial equality and the desire to attain it. I understand how things can get misconstrued. I sincerely hope that I can be proven wrong about my opinion of some posters' posts. I do believe that some are prejudice and do not know it, while others know it but will not admit it.

william
i am in agreement with your post.So thanks very much.

martin II

[martin II]

So we can deduce that on June 15th, orenthal james simpson was still suffering the physical effects of having butchered two human beings. Thanks for the info.

imo

what is strange is how you can read one set of facts as given by the doctor
and then, based on your initial ideas of what you think is fact, make claim that oj's physical problems were caused by the some event not mentioned by the doctor.I think william in his wisdom has called that circular argument.
martin II

[Big Ben]

there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

"he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo"

Narcissistic, uhm!, possibly. Mean, evil, sociopathic, and narcissistic all together? Imo, that's usually someone that the allegor has had a close relationship with. You need to ask yourself, how's your love-life, Weezer?

[martin II]

"he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo"

Narcissistic, uhm!, possibly. Mean, evil, sociopathic, and narcissistic all together? Imo, that's usually someone that the allegor has had a close relationship with. You need to ask yourself, how's your love-life, Weezer?

HAHAHA ;)

MARTIN ii

[tv]

"he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo"

Narcissistic, uhm!, possibly. Mean, evil, sociopathic, and narcissistic all together? Imo, that's usually someone that the allegor has had a close relationship with. You need to ask yourself, how's your love-life, Weezer?You need to stay with the subject at hand and stop with the personal attacks. You're not nearly as amusing as you think you are.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

To be taken serious, that kind of evaluation would normally be done by a professional. Not be the average poster here with no professional skills in those areas.

imo
martin II

[tv]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

To be taken serious, that kind of evaluation would normally be done by a professional. Not be the average poster here with no professional skills in those areas.

imo
martin IIWeezer stated that was her opinion not a professional evaluation. No one is forcing you to take it seriously.

[socaldiva]

Dr Phil is a professional & he doesn't exactly speak highly of Orenthal ;)
Pablo F. mentioned that Orenthal never expressed any remorse or sadness or Nicole's death in over 3 months that he spent interviewing. You don't need a PHD to know that that's not normal.

[socaldiva]

there is nothing wrong with orenthal's mind -- he's just a mean, evil, sociopathic, narcissistic person. imo

I agree. Anyone that's followed his behavior can see he exhibits these traits. As I recall, the psychatrist that Shapiro had meet with Orenthal said that he didn't express remorse or sadness & just talked about himself.

[Big Ben]

You need to stay with the subject at hand and stop with the personal attacks. You're not nearly as amusing as you think you are.

You know, they've cautioned me about what not to say to you!

[weezer]

You know, they've cautioned me about what not to say to you!

LOL -- oh dear -- tvdinner -- you've been found out! LOL

[martin II]

Weezer stated that was her opinion not a professional evaluation. No one is forcing you to take it seriously.

Are you refereeing for weezer? :shrug:

Well then there is no problem with people expressing their opinion about what fred is.:D
Thanks
martin II

[tv]

LOL -- oh dear -- tvdinner -- you've been found out! LOLOh, goodness, I wonder who "they" are? My cover is obviously blown! :biggrin:

[tv]

Are you refereeing for weezer? :shrug:

Well then there is no problem with people expressing their opinion about what fred is.:D
Thanks
martin IIWeezer doesn't need a referee as you well know. She does very well on her own. It was obvious you misunderstood her post so I was clarifying for you.

You can express your opinion about Fred Goldman as much as you want as long as you don't state your outlandish claims as fact. I'm used to your insults and remarks meant to degrade a man who is grieving for his murdered son.

[martin II]

Weezer doesn't need a referee as you well know. She does very well on her own. It was obvious you misunderstood her post so I was clarifying for you.

You can express your opinion about Fred Goldman as much as you want as long as you don't state your outlandish claims as fact. I'm used to your insults and remarks meant to degrade a man who is grieving for his murdered son.

i Don't believe she needs a referee either so maby you should stop 'CALRIFYING" for her.
MARTIN ii

[tv]

i Don't believe she needs a referee either so maby you should stop 'CALRIFYING" for her.
MARTIN iiClarifying and refereeing are two different things but I'll be glad to oblige you by not clarifying for you again. I also promise not to do any calrifying either. :)

[socaldiva]

i Don't believe she needs a referee either so maby you should stop 'CALRIFYING" for her.
MARTIN ii

What on earth is "calrifying"? :shrug: Whatever it is, I doubt tvdinner was doing it :tongue:

[wind149]

As for the race card, oh, his lawyer will try to play a spin on that except for the fact that a couple of the defendants are black as well. He does not have Johnny Cockroach in his corner now and those tapes are gonna sink his ass and I truly pray it does. He needs to be stopped in his tracks, he has gotten away with murder, beating up women, cheating on his taxes, refusing to pay civil judgments against him, basically has flipped the bird at Fred Goldman and I loathe him with everything in me. His bragging face on my TV makes me puke. I was very pleased when Jeff Ruby kicked him out of his restaurants and for the reasons he did it. I wrote the man a letter thanking him for doing so. He tried that race crap but you notice it did not go anywhere because Michael Jordan was there the same evening with about 30 people, most of them black. No Ruby, only wanted ONE BLACK MAN out of his restaurants. OJ does not know when to shut his yap and maybe this time he will be silenced for good. If the convictions hold up I would love to see him get at least 30 years, he would be in his 90's and maybe in a quirky way, he would be paying for killing Nicole and Ron. He should be sitting in San Quentin right now and if it wasn't for the fact the jury was made to be away for so long and the riots fresh in people's minds, the lab had not screwed up and that lousy Cockroach and his glove spin, he would be there right now, just another dirtbag in a cage. And I hope that Fred bankrupts him piece by piece. He is a loser, has-been, wife beating, murdering scum and that is my final answer!

[socaldiva]

:beer: :beer: :beer: For Wind149

[socaldiva]

Q: You claim to know more about his life than he does?

A: I didn't realize that you intended for me to answer the portion of your question written in invisble ink! Be clear in the wording of your questions.

Q: Wrong. He said that he was treated fairly by LE after the murders also as well. Didn't you listen to him in the Bronco?

A: Doesn't the Venus Fly Trap emit a seductive odor that beguiles and relaxes its intended victim, the fly. The seduction is enough for the fly to think that it's safe to be in its' midst without a concern about harmful intent? I have alleged to my peers that Simpson's mind, on certain subjects, is about as gullible as the unsuspecting fly.

No invisible ink. Perhaps you should make more of an effort to read & digest the posts before you get all snarky in your reply ;)

As for your Venus Fly Trap novella, I suppose you are determined to say that LE treated Orenthal poorly & he didn't know it. What a hoot!

[Big Ben]

No invisible ink. Perhaps you should make more of an effort to read & digest the posts before you get all snarky in your reply ;)

As for your Venus Fly Trap novella, I suppose you are determined to say that LE treated Orenthal poorly & he didn't know it. What a hoot!

I believe that your original post, citing your initial remark, can be found in post number 1118 of this mix, and I therefore do not believe my reply was objectively off the mark. However, I think that you spend an inordinate amount of time "digesting", as you've put it. Unfortunately the end result is all to often subjectively obnoxious.

As far as your latter comment regarding LE, I have no comment. The issue of prior or post treatment, in regard to the greater fraud that has occurred in this matter, imo, is completely irrelevant.

[Big Ben]

He does not have Johnny Cockroach in his corner now and that lousy Cockroach and his glove spin, he would be there right now, just another dirtbag in a cage.

You're right, wind149. I agree with you regarding J.C.! Take a look at this link below regarding that "lousy Cockroach".

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[BigBrat]

As for the race card, oh, his lawyer will try to play a spin on that except for the fact that a couple of the defendants are black as well. He does not have Johnny Cockroach in his corner now and those tapes are gonna sink his ass and I truly pray it does. He needs to be stopped in his tracks, he has gotten away with murder, beating up women, cheating on his taxes, refusing to pay civil judgments against him, basically has flipped the bird at Fred Goldman and I loathe him with everything in me. His bragging face on my TV makes me puke. I was very pleased when Jeff Ruby kicked him out of his restaurants and for the reasons he did it. I wrote the man a letter thanking him for doing so. He tried that race crap but you notice it did not go anywhere because Michael Jordan was there the same evening with about 30 people, most of them black. No Ruby, only wanted ONE BLACK MAN out of his restaurants. OJ does not know when to shut his yap and maybe this time he will be silenced for good. If the convictions hold up I would love to see him get at least 30 years, he would be in his 90's and maybe in a quirky way, he would be paying for killing Nicole and Ron. He should be sitting in San Quentin right now and if it wasn't for the fact the jury was made to be away for so long and the riots fresh in people's minds, the lab had not screwed up and that lousy Cockroach and his glove spin, he would be there right now, just another dirtbag in a cage. And I hope that Fred bankrupts him piece by piece. He is a loser, has-been, wife beating, murdering scum and that is my final answer!

Wind, I will print out your post and sleep with it under my pillow. It's all I wish for O.J. I too hope he is convicted and serves time for his latest caper. Justice often comes in strange packages.
JMO

[Kate Sachel]

I think you are right that a discussion of race causes hard feelings. I ask myself why. The discussion often leads to self reflection, which, imho, maybe the cause of such emotions. I think we all to some degree harbor racial prejudice and until we are able to admit it and stive to overcome it, the discussion will always cause hard feelings. I think there is a vast difference between racial prejudice and racism.

I think that, in general, people find difficulty in talking about race because so much is blown out of proportion regarding it and the media serves only to fuel that fire rather than extinguish it. Anytime a black individual is convicted by an all white jury that is the first thing I hear from the media (all white jury!) or when a black indidivual is aquitted by an all black jury that is the first thing I hear from the media (all black jury!) and so on. When a white individual is aquitted or convicted by an all white jury I hear nothing from the media.

Whatever happened to responsible journalism?

My father used to tell me that everyone was prejudiced to a degree and that the best we could do is not let it interefere with how we treat other races. Perhaps that is the case, but I feel truly color blind. I don't recall an instance where I've looked at something and formed even the slightest or fleeting belief based on race.

Kate

[socaldiva]

*snip* Unfortunately the end result is all to often subjectively obnoxious.



What is obnoxious is your constant personal remarks about posters :punch: :no: I guess you feel you need to attack, because you are so often wrong about what you post relative to this case.

[weezer]

"Co-defendants get deal to testify against O.J. Simpson Story Highlights
NEW:
Two co-defendants plead guilty to reduced charges "O.J. said 'Hey, just bring some firearms,"' Walter Alexander told police Alexander took a plea deal to testify for the prosecution in the robbery case Simpson and others accused of armed robbery in Las Vegas last month."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/23/oj.codefendant.ap/

karma, karma, karma

[martin II]

"Co-defendants get deal to testify against O.J. Simpson Story Highlights
NEW:
Two co-defendants plead guilty to reduced charges "O.J. said 'Hey, just bring some firearms,"' Walter Alexander told police Alexander took a plea deal to testify for the prosecution in the robbery case Simpson and others accused of armed robbery in Las Vegas last month."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/23/oj.codefendant.ap/

karma, karma, karma

In the end i believe all will get plea deals and probation except oj. Including the two that had the guns.
martin II

[wind149]

I watched the You Tube link in sheer horror! That is the first time I saw Nicole's body! I had seen pictures of the bloody walkway but never that poor woman and now I hate the scumbag even more and he sure as hell was the one who did the crime. So much hate there for a random killing like the "Dream Team" was spinning? So many people let Nicole and Ron down. Everyone was swayed by OJ's "celebrity" status, like this gridiron great could not have possibly been the one to butcher those two people. I said in an earlier post, he was scoping her out. I bet he sat in a rented car, watching every move she made as OJ does not think of women as women. Along with his Super Bowl rings, women are a possession to him and when Nicole finally got sick of being berated by him and slapped around and left him that big fat ego of his would not let it happen. If he could not have her, no one else was going to either. Typical wife beater mind-set. And all these years he has thumbed his nose at all of us, lady justice, and even to his own kids. Surely, as adults now, I wonder if he would ever give them a straight answer if they were to ask if he killed their mother. My money is one the fact he is a pathological liar among other things and would say to the kids, "No way" But the sad fact remains, he could go on Oprah tomorrow and brag to the whole world he did it just like his book says and he would not spend one second behind bars for it. I just pray no one is swayed this time and see him for the evil scum he is. His football career has been long over and his acting career was over before it started. He sucked! His co-defendants are gonna roll on him and it will be a pleasure to see this trial on Court TV, watching him squirm in his seat as dude after dude gets up and spills their guts. And get to the good part where he is sentenced for a long haul. By now, even inmates are not going to be impressed by the "Juice" They will probably see him like we do. A low-life, wife beating, has-been "star" murdering scumbag who can't keep his mouth shut. I think he will have a hard time behind bars this time around. A lot of guys will resent the fact he got away with murder and they didn't. They are not gonna wanna hear how innocent he is and everybody ganged up on him, it wasn't his idea to being guns, blah ,blah, blah, boo hoo whine.:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

I think that, in general, people find difficulty in talking about race because so much is blown out of proportion regarding it and the media serves only to fuel that fire rather than extinguish it. Anytime a black individual is convicted by an all white jury that is the first thing I hear from the media (all white jury!) or when a black indidivual is aquitted by an all black jury that is the first thing I hear from the media (all black jury!) and so on. When a white individual is aquitted or convicted by an all white jury I hear nothing from the media.

Whatever happened to responsible journalism?

My father used to tell me that everyone was prejudiced to a degree and that the best we could do is not let it interefere with how we treat other races. Perhaps that is the case, but I feel truly color blind. I don't recall an instance where I've looked at something and formed even the slightest or fleeting belief based on race.

Kate

Kate,

I believe that your father was right and gave you sage advice. I for one have not been so fortunate as to be able to totally ingnore skin color in all situations. When I see a White bald-headed person driving in a pick-up truck that displays the confederate flag and has a shotgun hanging in the rack, I do not look at that person as a cancer survivor driving someone else's vehicle on his/her way to treatment. When I walk past Blacks with hoodies and baggy clothes of one particular color in a group, I do not think that they may have just come from a pep rally. I have encountered both situations and been told, "God bless" by the person and the group. I had to face my inner feelings when I heard those two words.

While things may be blown out of proportion, there is a truth in your post. When a White defendant is found not guilty by an all white jury, little is said of it. However, when a Black defendant is found not guilty by an all Black jury, which I have never heard of, so let's say predominately Black, then MOST OF AMERICA is instantly in an outrage, when that crime is a charge of violence against a White. I understand that both of us are speaking in generalities.

[martin II]

Kate,

I believe that your father was right and gave you sage advice. I for one have not been so fortunate as to be able to totally ingnore skin color in all situations. When I see a White bald-headed person driving in a pick-up truck that displays the confederate flag and has a shotgun hanging in the rack, I do not look at that person as a cancer survivor driving someone else's vehicle on his/her way to treatment. When I walk past Blacks with hoodies and baggy clothes of one particular color in a group, I do not think that they may have just come from a pep rally. I have encountered both situations and been told, "God bless" by the person and the group. I had to face my inner feelings when I heard those two words.

While things may be blown out of proportion, there is a truth in your post. When a White defendant is found not guilty by an all white jury, little is said of it. However, when a Black defendant is found not guilty by an all Black jury, which I have never heard of, so let's say predominately Black, then MOST OF AMERICA is instantly in an outrage, when that crime is a charge of violence against a White. I understand that both of us are speaking in generalities.

william
I believe that the media, understanding the racial attitudes of most Americans, shape stories to feed them what they may want to hear, racial aspect, for the purpose of ratings and money.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I believe that the media, understanding the racial attitudes of most Americans, shape stories to feed them what they may want to hear, racial aspect, for the purpose of ratings and money.


Then why do most, if not all shows put on both defense & prosecution attorney's to examine the cases? According to your theories both Michael Jackson & OJ Simpson should be behind bars & yet they aren't.

[Big Ben]

What is obnoxious is your constant personal remarks about posters :punch: :no: I guess you feel you need to attack, because you are so often wrong about what you post relative to this case.

Uwish!

[Big Ben]

I watched the You Tube link in sheer horror! That is the first time I saw Nicole's body! I had seen pictures of the bloody walkway but never that poor woman and now I hate the scumbag even more and he sure as hell was the one who did the crime. So much hate there for a random killing like the "Dream Team" was spinning?

Glad you watched it, wind149. Now go back and analyze it. Analyze it for more than the horror that you saw. I think that your mind froze right there with Nicole lying in blood. Analyze it and tell me something that you see in the clip beyond Simpson being a low life.

[socaldiva]

Uwish!


No, there is no reason for me to "wish" for other posters to post false information or be wrong. I find it rather tiresome & it adds nothing to the discussion ;)

[Big Ben]

No, there is no reason for me to "wish" for other posters to post false information or be wrong. I find it rather tiresome & it adds nothing to the discussion ;)

If you find false information, then point it out. I don't think that I've been off the mark.

What type of discussion?

All I seem to hear from you is a constant stream of aspersions about Simpson. I thought what was intended here was objective analysis. Just consider how fatiguing your own gets to be, if you even care.

Your awkward baiting is just the byproduct that corrupt officials associated with this massive fraud probably intended, and are now able to gleefully hide behind, imo.

I propose that you take a rest. If you don't like my opinions, don't direct any commentary my way, and I will simply ignore yours as well.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Your awkward baiting is just the byproduct that corrupt officials associated with this massive fraud probably intended, and are now able to gleefully hide behind, imo.



Your accusation about baiting is false, just like your notion of a "massive fraud & corruption". If anyone is baiting, I suggest it's you. You seem to often feel compelled to stoop to personal attacks.

[Big Ben]

Your accusation about baiting is false, just like your notion of a "massive fraud & corruption". If anyone is baiting, I suggest it's you. You seem to often feel compelled to stoop to personal attacks.


Really! You need to examine your posts, personal attacks appear to be the crux of what your remarks invariably amount to, albeit O.J. Simpson, or anyone else that appears to disagree with your herd mentality.

You're the last one that is capable of judging my notion of what appears to be a massive and corrupt fraud upon the American public. You have not apparently done any independent research or discovery of your own. You've gathered allleged evidence from the media, who have received theirs with little or no due diligence from duplicitous court officers in the State of California. These are the same court officers who have been found by federal investigators to be prolifically involved in planting evidence on innocent people and sending them to prison for years.

Government officials don't lie, invent, plant or shade evidence. That's unheard of to people like you. The Simpson affair has similiar characteristics to the lies associated with the Bush & Cheney administration for going to war. They both carry similiar duplicitous characteristics.

But after watching your style, I guess Bush & Cheney along with their secretive cronies haven't lied to the American people either. Never-the-less, do you know for sure that the concealing of exculpatory evidence just couldn't be the case in the Simpson matter?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Really! You need to examine your posts, personal attacks appear to be the crux of what your remarks invariably amount to, albeit O.J. Simpson, or anyone else that appears to disagree with your herd mentality.


Ah, more personal attacks. No surprise there. Perhaps that's why you only have one rep point ;)

I thought you weren't going to post to me? :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[Big Ben]

Ah, more personal attacks. No surprise there. Perhaps that's why you only have one rep point ;)

I thought you weren't going to post to me? :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Herd Mentality? Well diva, it's a legitimate perception, not mean spirited. Whether I'm correct or not, the shoe seems to fit, and you should be proud of it. You're like the leader.

See U later, alligator! (Oh no! I apologize again! I forgot, you think that I'm referring to you as a reptile or something, by calling you an alligator, when I'm just using the age-old euphemism for saying so long, au revoir, hasta la vista, good bye, etc., you know!)

[weezer]

Herd Mentality? Well diva, it's a legitimate perception, not mean spirited. Whether I'm correct or not, the shoe seems to fit, and you should be proud of it. You're like the leader.

See U later, alligator! (Oh no! I apologize again! I forgot, you think that I'm referring to you as a reptile or something, by calling you an alligator, when I'm just using the age-old euphemism for saying so long, au revoir, hasta la vista, good bye, etc., you know!)

Dude -- you need to up the meds again! :D

[martin II]

Dude -- you need to up the meds again! :D

you need to stop suggesting that you know anything about posters medical
conditions and giving medical advise. That is for sure.
imo
martin II

[Big Ben]

Dude -- you need to up the meds again! :D

Now here you come, Weezer, with your 2 cents.

[weezer]

you need to stop suggesting that you know anything about posters medical
conditions and giving medical advise. That is for sure.
imo
martin II

:punch: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

Now here you come, Weezer, with your 2 cents.

:punch: :seeya: :seeya:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
so long, au revoir, hasta la vista, good bye

Ciao Benny! :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Back on topic: Does anyone else know if any more of Simpson's buddies turned on him, today relative to the Vegas crimes?

[Big Ben]

I will wager that in the Las Vegas case:

The property belonged to Simpson,
The gun toters had permits, and
we already know that two individuals possessing
Simpson's alleged property were felons.

To a great number of Americans, Simpson simply acted as many men would have acted in America. He went to retrieve his property, which he may or may not have had a right to do. That is yet to be seen. But certainly the aggrivated charges against him have a big question mark hanging over them.

Many of you have this insatiable appetite for Simpson's conviction due to the 1995 criminal trial, and I believe that you are way off the mark here. This case has some of the earmarks of the orchestrated 1995 and 1997 Simpson trials. It, as they were, seems intended to manipulate the mass publics' mind again.

If he is convicted, he is thus martyred, on what appears to be trumped up, or at least grossly inflated charges. If sent to jail, which is what many of you want to see, he stands to be re-elevated to heroic status. Again,imo, it appears that the rules that govern our common law court system would have been gutted to satisfy the appetite of the masses simply to bring about a popular result. IMO,this continuation of an apparent fraudulent manipulation of our justice system is a serious concern to many of us.

If I were some of you, I would be cautious in what I wished for.

[bobaugust]

I will wager that in the Las Vegas case:

The property belonged to Simpson,
The gun toters had permits, and
we already know that two individuals possessing
Simpson's alleged property were felons.

To a great number of Americans, Simpson simply acted as many men would have acted in America. He went to retrieve his property, which he may or may not have had a right to do. That is yet to be seen. But certainly the aggrivated charges against him have a big question mark hanging over them.

Many of you have this insatiable appetite for Simpson's conviction due to the 1995 criminal trial, and I believe that you are way off the mark here. This case has some of the earmarks of the orchestrated 1995 and 1997 Simpson trials. It, as they were, seems intended to manipulate the mass publics' mind again.

If he is convicted, he is thus martyred, on what appears to be trumped up, or at least grossly inflated charges. If sent to jail, which is what many of you want to see, he stands to be re-elevated to heroic status. Again,imo, it appears that the rules that govern our common law court system would have been gutted to satisfy the appetite of the masses simply to bring about a popular result. IMO,this continuation of an apparent fraudulent manipulation of our justice system is a serious concern to many of us.

If I were some of you, I would be cautious in what I wished for.

As I understand it Simpson went after property he had given to Beardsley to hide from the Goldmans. Memorabilia that the Goldman's unsuccessfully sued Beardsley for a couple of years ago. When Simpson and his co defendants left the hotel they not only took that property but Beardsley's personal property as well. Whether or not you think Simpson had a right to do what he diid, the law says he didn't. All of the felony charges are based on the fact that guns were involved, something Simpson denies. If the prosecutors can prove there were guns, Simpson's going to jail barring any racial fiasco Simpson's defense might try if there is a jury trial. Based on the fact that two of the defendants, one black, have already pleading guilty of having guns it doesn't look good for our hero.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

As I understand it Simpson went after property he had given to Beardsley to hide from the Goldmans. Memorabilia that the Goldman's unsuccessfully sued Beardsley for a couple of years ago. When Simpson and his co defendants left the hotel they not only took that property but Beardsley's personal property as well. Whether or not you think Simpson had a right to do what he diid, the law says he didn't. All of the felony charges are based on the fact that guns were involved, something Simpson denies. If the prosecutors can prove there were guns, Simpson's going to jail barring any racial fiasco Simpson's defense might try if there is a jury trial. Based on the fact that two of the defendants, one black, have already pleading guilty of having guns it doesn't look good for our hero.

bobaugust

Your understanding may be wrong and we should wait for a trial to see how it plays out.

[Big Ben]

If the prosecutors can prove there were guns, Simpson's going to jail barring any racial fiasco Simpson's defense might try if there is a jury trial.

. . Based on the fact that two of the defendants, one black, have already pleading guilty of having guns it doesn't look good for our hero.

Whether or not you think Simpson had a right to do what he diid, the law says he didn't.

bobaugust

Unfortunately, you don't know what the laws says, and you are not an expert, as I have previously surmised. There are a number of mitigating factors that I already see in this matter.

However, I also believe that these factors are already known and may be intended to be spun again to further blind the public with racial hostility, thus creating another opportunity to fan the racial flames by individuals like yourself.

I'm wagering that the image of the apparent doom of "our hero" is where the show will begin. This whole fiasco appears to be contrived not unlike the so called trial of the century, and again it appears to be tailor made for viewers, like yourself, who appear ready to float presumptive opinions as to what role race will play in the trial decision, if it doesn't go a certain way.

Simpson's denial of guns, imo, is only a cause of action in a common law court if those that were carrying guns were doing so unlawfully. Certainly, you can understand the benefit of the display of a weapon when one is confronting culprits who are fugitives from the law. You're not in a position to tell an officer of the court whether he should brandish a fire arm in these type of circumstances, nor a bounty hunter, nor a citizen making a citizen's arrest.

Simpson nor the gun possessors may not have known of the intent of the exconvicts and criminal fugitive in the hotel room that they were preparing to confront.

The whole episode went rather smoothly, all things considered, imo, except that ironically the principal antagonist from a limited public perception, is viewed as the villain instead of the hero.

Simpson and company in effect, it appears, inadvertently wound up being bounty hunters in this instance, because one of the holders of his alleged property turned out to be a parole violator. I believe a Sheriff's task force subsequently came from California to Nevada to retrieve the felon/parole violator and take him back.

However, I must not forget that we are in our own court of public opinion. The standards are different and much is unfortunately swayed by racial animus, imo, purposely promulgated after the last Simpson trial to cover-up the fraud perpetrated against the American people, the concealing and suppression of crucial evidence which was more than likely exculpatory.

[bobaugust]

Unfortunately, you don't know what the laws says, and you are not an expert, as I have previously surmised. There are a number of mitigating factors that I already see in this matter.

However, I also believe that these factors are already known and may be intended to be spun again to further blind the public with racial hostility, thus creating another opportunity to fan the racial flames by individuals like yourself.

I'm wagering that the image of the apparent doom of "our hero" is where the show will begin. This whole fiasco appears to be contrived not unlike the so called trial of the century, and again it appears to be tailor made for viewers, like yourself, who appear ready to float presumptive opinions as to what role race will play in the trial decision, if it doesn't go a certain way.

Simpson's denial of guns, imo, is only a cause of action in a common law court if those that were carrying guns were doing so unlawfully. Certainly, you can understand the benefit of the display of a weapon when one is confronting culprits who are fugitives from the law. You're not in a position to tell an officer of the court whether he should brandish a fire arm in these type of circumstances, nor a bounty hunter, nor a citizen making a citizen's arrest.

Simpson nor the gun possessors may not have known of the intent of the exconvicts and criminal fugitive in the hotel room that they were preparing to confront.

The whole episode went rather smoothly, all things considered, imo, except that ironically the principal antagonist from a limited public perception, is viewed as the villain instead of the hero.

Simpson and company in effect, it appears, inadvertently wound up being bounty hunters in this instance, because one of the holders of his alleged property turned out to be a parole violator. I believe a Sheriff's task force subsequently came from California to Nevada to retrieve the felon/parole violator and take him back.

However, I must not forget that we are in our own court of public opinion. The standards are different and much is unfortunately swayed by racial animus, imo, purposely promulgated after the last Simpson trial to cover-up the fraud perpetrated against the American people, the concealing and suppression of crucial evidence which was more than likely exculpatory.

The fact that guns were involved makes the crimes Simpson is accused of felony crimes. One of the victims in the hotel room who was confronted by Simpson and his armed associates was not a fugitive and didn't have any criminal record like some who accompanied Simpson. This incident didn't involve an officer of the court, a bounty hunter, or a citizen making a citizen's arrest. I seriously doubt Simpson's attorneys would try to argue Simpson was a bounty hunter and I sincerely hope that race is not part of this trial since race had nothing to do with these crimes just as it had nothing to do with the Bundy murders.

The only fraud I've seen being perpetrated regarding the Simpson case is by you Big Ben with your fraudulent video.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

I will wager that in the Las Vegas case:

The property belonged to Simpson,
The gun toters had permits, and
we already know that two individuals possessing
Simpson's alleged property were felons.

To a great number of Americans, Simpson simply acted as many men would have acted in America. He went to retrieve his property, which he may or may not have had a right to do. That is yet to be seen. But certainly the aggrivated charges against him have a big question mark hanging over them.

Many of you have this insatiable appetite for Simpson's conviction due to the 1995 criminal trial, and I believe that you are way off the mark here. This case has some of the earmarks of the orchestrated 1995 and 1997 Simpson trials. It, as they were, seems intended to manipulate the mass publics' mind again.

If he is convicted, he is thus martyred, on what appears to be trumped up, or at least grossly inflated charges. If sent to jail, which is what many of you want to see, he stands to be re-elevated to heroic status. Again,imo, it appears that the rules that govern our common law court system would have been gutted to satisfy the appetite of the masses simply to bring about a popular result. IMO,this continuation of an apparent fraudulent manipulation of our justice system is a serious concern to many of us.

If I were some of you, I would be cautious in what I wished for.

As always though Ben, there are two sides and I also firmly believe that just as there are those who want to see this man behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is, there are also those who don't want to see him behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is.

I think it's a shame that you seem to equate so much of this to race though, and I believe that individuals like yourself are those who serve only to fuel the racial fire. I'm not saying that there aren't those who dislike Simpson based solely on the color of his skin, but I am saying I think it's ludicrous to automatically assume that any or all ill will toward him be racially motivated.

Myself, I didn't dislike him immediately after the trial because I felt that the criminal verdict was just and appropriate. My dislike for him came far after the fact when I saw him perform act after tasteless act and mock the murder of two human beings at every opportunity.

So would I enjoy it if justice caught with him and sent him to jail? Absolutely, if and only if, the truth of the matter in Vegas is enough to send him there. But I would take no joy in seeing him behind bars at the expense of our justice system and the truth.

Kate

[Heyes]

As always though Ben, there are two sides and I also firmly believe that just as there are those who want to see this man behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is, there are also those who don't want to see him behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is.

I think it's a shame that you seem to equate so much of this to race though, and I believe that individuals like yourself are those who serve only to fuel the racial fire. I'm not saying that there aren't those who dislike Simpson based solely on the color of his skin, but I am saying I think it's ludicrous to automatically assume that any or all ill will toward him be racially motivated.

Myself, I didn't dislike him immediately after the trial because I felt that the criminal verdict was just and appropriate. My dislike for him came far after the fact when I saw him perform act after tasteless act and mock the murder of two human beings at every opportunity.

So would I enjoy it if justice caught with him and sent him to jail? Absolutely, if and only if, the truth of the matter in Vegas is enough to send him there. But I would take no joy in seeing him behind bars at the expense of our justice system and the truth.

Kate

Totally fair and wise post!
I however would get such joy seeing simpson locked up tight for the rest of his murdering life for any reason!' He's lucky I'm not on his jury. lol
IMO
I agree with you Kate, his tasteless acts have left me cold. It further proved to me his guilt.
And no it's not a racial thing. So those that think it's because he's black can just rest their fingers.

[weezer]

As always though Ben, there are two sides and I also firmly believe that just as there are those who want to see this man behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is, there are also those who don't want to see him behind bars so badly that they don't care what the real truth is.

I think it's a shame that you seem to equate so much of this to race though, and I believe that individuals like yourself are those who serve only to fuel the racial fire. I'm not saying that there aren't those who dislike Simpson based solely on the color of his skin, but I am saying I think it's ludicrous to automatically assume that any or all ill will toward him be racially motivated.

Myself, I didn't dislike him immediately after the trial because I felt that the criminal verdict was just and appropriate. My dislike for him came far after the fact when I saw him perform act after tasteless act and mock the murder of two human beings at every opportunity.

So would I enjoy it if justice caught with him and sent him to jail? Absolutely, if and only if, the truth of the matter in Vegas is enough to send him there. But I would take no joy in seeing him behind bars at the expense of our justice system and the truth.

Kate

good job, Kate!

[bobaugust]

Third Man Agrees to Testify Against O.J.

Michael McClinton, 49, of Las Vegas, became the third man to agree to plead guilty to reduced charges in return for his testimony.

He told Justice of the Peace Joe M. Bonaventure he will plead guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. He could receive probation or up to 11 years in prison.

McClinton wielded a gun and acted like a police officer Sept. 13 when Simpson and five other men confronted collectibles dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley at an off-Strip casino hotel, according to police reports. Walter Alexander, a Simpson golfing buddy from Mesa, Ariz., who also took a plea deal and agreed to testify in the case, told police that McClinton gave a gun to him, but he never took it out of his waistband.

McClinton, a security guard whose guns were confiscated and who agreed to surrender his concealed weapons permit, spoke in court only to acknowledge he understood the terms of the plea agreement and to waive his preliminary hearing.

The judge declined to lift house arrest restrictions for McClinton, who posted $32,000 bail after he was arrested Sept. 18.

In brief comments outside the courtroom, McClinton's lawyer, William Terry, confirmed that McClinton can testify Simpson asked him to bring two guns when they went to the hotel room at the Palace Station casino.

"There's no reason to dispute that," Terry said.

Terry said McClinton's testimony at a scheduled Nov. 8 preliminary hearing will come before his Nov. 13 plea. The lawyer said further details of McClinton's role would come out "during the course of the preliminary hearing or ... after he enters his plea."

McClinton's testimony would provide prosecutors with another account contradicting Simpson's claim that no guns were involved when he went to retrieve items he said belonged to him.

His plea is not a surprise, said Simpson attorney Yale Galanter, adding that he believes McClinton will be the last cooperating witness.

"What this comes down to is the real bad guys are pointing a finger at O.J., and the prosecution is giving away the courthouse to try to shore up their case," Galanter told The Associated Press. "We look forward to cross-examining these witnesses at the preliminary hearing next week. "

Simpson and co-defendants Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich each face 12 criminal charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy and coercion, and one gross misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a crime. A kidnapping conviction alone could result in a sentence of life in prison with parole.

Lawyers for Stewart and Ehrlich did not respond to messages seeking comment about McClinton's plea deal.

Alexander told police that Simpson said to bring guns, and told him later to deny that guns were used. Alexander pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and could face probation or up to six years in prison.

Charles Cashmore, a union laborer from Las Vegas, pleaded guilty to felony accessory to robbery and also agreed to testify against the three men. He could receive probation or up to five years in prison.

Authorities say memorabilia taken from the hotel room included football game balls signed by Simpson, Joe Montana lithographs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, photos of Simpson with the Heisman Trophy, and framed awards and plaques, together valued at as much as $100,000, according to police reports.

http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/third-man-agrees-to-testify-against-oj/20071029115709990001

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I however would get such joy seeing simpson locked up tight for the rest of his murdering life for any reason!'

Same here, as long as it's been proven that he is guilty of whatever he is accused of. Too bad he didn't learn his lesson when he walked on the murder charge.

[Big Ben]

I will wager that in the Las Vegas case:

The property belonged to Simpson,
The gun toters had permits, and
we already know that two individuals possessing
Simpson's alleged property were felons.

To a great number of Americans, Simpson simply acted as many men would have acted in America. He went to retrieve his property, which he may or may not have had a right to do. That is yet to be seen. But certainly the aggrivated charges against him have a big question mark hanging over them.

Many of you have this insatiable appetite for Simpson's conviction due to the 1995 criminal trial, and I believe that you are way off the mark here. This case has some of the earmarks of the orchestrated 1995 and 1997 Simpson trials. It, as they were, seems intended to manipulate the mass publics' mind again.

If he is convicted, he is thus martyred, on what appears to be trumped up, or at least grossly inflated charges. If sent to jail, which is what many of you want to see, he stands to be re-elevated to heroic status. Again,imo, it appears that the rules that govern our common law court system would have been gutted to satisfy the appetite of the masses simply to bring about a popular result. IMO,this continuation of an apparent fraudulent manipulation of our justice system is a serious concern to many of us.

If I were some of you, I would be cautious in what I wished for.

Kate's response: I think it's a shame that you seem to equate so much of this to race though, and I believe that individuals like yourself are those who serve only to fuel the racial fire.

Above your remark is my original posting, Kate. I'm puzzled as to where you arrive at "fueling the racial fire" out of this posting. To the extent that you can allegedly find fault with me without any apparent commentary towards some of the other outlandish racially tinted remarks is beyond my comprehension, and lends towards your own suspicious motives. It unfortunately appears to resemble an acute case of myopia to me.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate's response: I think it's a shame that you seem to equate so much of this to race though, and I believe that individuals like yourself are those who serve only to fuel the racial fire.

Above your remark is my original posting, Kate. I'm puzzled as to where you arrive at "fueling the racial fire" out of this posting. To the extent that you can allegedly find fault with me without any apparent commentary towards some of the other outlandish racially tinted remarks is beyond my comprehension, and lends towards your own suspicious motives. It unfortunately appears to resemble an acute case of myopia to me.

Ben's remark: "However, I must not forget that we are in our own court of public opinion. The standards are different and much is unfortunately swayed by racial animus, imo, purposely promulgated after the last Simpson trial to cover-up the fraud perpetrated against the American people, the concealing and suppression of crucial evidence which was more than likely exculpatory."

This is the nonsense of which I speak.

Kate

[kjb19500]

This is quickly becoming very interesting.

If Simpson is convicted of the Vegas charges it's because the jury pool is tainted and a fair jury wasn't possible. If he's not convicted it's because the race card was played again and the jury is tainted by racism.

I guess that covers all the bases, eh.

"I'm wagering that the image of the apparent doom of "our hero" is where the show will begin. This whole fiasco appears to be contrived not unlike the so called trial of the century, and again it appears to be tailor made for viewers, like yourself, who appear ready to float presumptive opinions as to what role race will play in the trial decision, if it doesn't go a certain way."

[Big Ben]

The fact that..................

bobaugust

bobaugust: The fact that guns were involved makes the crimes Simpson is accused of felony crimes....With all due respect, august, you are simply prognosticating, you can't assure anyone with any level of certainty that your presumptions regarding the above are factual. As I said before, there are mitigating circumstances already associated with this case. Don't let your previous racial statement guide your better judgment, august.

bobaugust: One of the victims in the hotel room who was confronted by Simpson and his armed associates was not a fugitive and didn't have any criminal record like some who accompanied Simpson........So what! Two others with that particular one were ex-felons, one had an outstanding warrant for his arrest for parole violation. Unfortunately this is not the first time that an alleged innocent bystander has been subdued by gun point. The facts have to be sorted out, your innocent bystander may become a defendant if Simpson's allegations are correct and the property belongs to him.

bobaugust: I sincerely hope that race is not part of this trial since race had nothing to do with these crimes just as it had nothing to do with the Bundy murders.....Well it's no sense in me arguing this nonsense with you, especially when the prosecution attempted to make their star witness LAPD Officer Mark Fuhrman, a guy who admitted to perpetrating vile and horrendous acts upon men of color for no apparent reason other than his racial hatred of Blacks in general. As you already know, I believe that the trial was an orchestrated sham, a fraud, and that Nicole was still alive talking on the telephone to her mother while Simpson was in the process of boarding his flight to Chicago. Fuhrman was, imo, simply another pawn pushed into play to provide camouflague in the form of racial division in order to cover up this orchestrated fraud.

bobaugust: The only fraud I've seen being perpetrated regarding the Simpson case is by you Big Ben with your fraudulent video...... Fools talk! You haven't seen the full video documentary "Serpents Rising". You're the only one who has ever made such an all encompassing comment about this important film, on this subject, and you haven't even seen it. Therefore again, I simply say, fools talk.

[Big Ben]

Totally fair and wise post!
I however would get such joy seeing simpson locked up tight for the rest of his murdering life for any reason!' He's lucky I'm not on his jury. lol
IMO
I agree with you Kate, his tasteless acts have left me cold. It further proved to me his guilt.
And no it's not a racial thing. So those that think it's because he's black can just rest their fingers.

Heyes: Totally fair and wise post!....And no it's not a racial thing. So those that think it's because he's black can just rest their fingers.

I have no idea of what you are talking about, unless it's something I, Big Ben, specifically stated, I think that it is poor judgment to presume any of your assumptions regarding me based upon Kate's post.

[Big Ben]

Ben's remark: "However, I must not forget that we are in our own court of public opinion. The standards are different and much is unfortunately swayed by racial animus, imo, purposely promulgated after the last Simpson trial to cover-up the fraud perpetrated against the American people, the concealing and suppression of crucial evidence which was more than likely exculpatory."

This is the nonsense of which I speak.

Kate

My comment was in response to bobaugust's "racial fiasco" remark. Here again, we struggle with a matter of perception. Had the jury been all White bobaugust, I highly doubt, would have made the "racial fiasco" remark. He, nor you, have any evidence that the jury ruled in the Simpson criminal trial on the basis of race. None of the jurors have ever expressed that fact, to my knowledge.

But here comes bobaugust with his omnipotent mind, he knows how the jury ruled or how the jury was influenced to rule. You couldn't wait to reprimand me about fueling the racial fire, but you failed to see his inflammatory proclamation. I think that you are yet to see your own myopic sense of reasoning; very interesting!

<*R>

[bobaugust]

bobaugust: The fact that guns were involved makes the crimes Simpson is accused of felony crimes....With all due respect, august, you are simply prognosticating, you can't assure anyone with any level of certainty that your presumptions regarding the above are factual. As I said before, there are mitigating circumstances already associated with this case. Don't let your previous racial statement guide your better judgment, august.

bobaugust: One of the victims in the hotel room who was confronted by Simpson and his armed associates was not a fugitive and didn't have any criminal record like some who accompanied Simpson........So what! Two others with that particular one were ex-felons, one had an outstanding warrant for his arrest for parole violation. Unfortunately this is not the first time that an alleged innocent bystander has been subdued by gun point. The facts have to be sorted out, your innocent bystander may become a defendant if Simpson's allegations are correct and the property belongs to him.

bobaugust: I sincerely hope that race is not part of this trial since race had nothing to do with these crimes just as it had nothing to do with the Bundy murders.....Well it's no sense in me arguing this nonsense with you, especially when the prosecution attempted to make their star witness LAPD Officer Mark Fuhrman, a guy who admitted to perpetrating vile and horrendous acts upon men of color for no apparent reason other than his racial hatred of Blacks in general. As you already know, I believe that the trial was an orchestrated sham, a fraud, and that Nicole was still alive talking on the telephone to her mother while Simpson was in the process of boarding his flight to Chicago. Fuhrman was, imo, simply another pawn pushed into play to provide camouflague in the form of racial division in order to cover up this orchestrated fraud.

bobaugust: The only fraud I've seen being perpetrated regarding the Simpson case is by you Big Ben with your fraudulent video...... Fools talk! You haven't seen the full video documentary "Serpents Rising". You're the only one who has ever made such an all encompassing comment about this important film, on this subject, and you haven't even seen it. Therefore again, I simply say, fools talk.

Big Ben, It sounds like you haven't been keeping up with this case or are aware of all the felony charges against Simpson. Felony charges all based on the fact that guns were involved. The fact that one of the victims had no criminal record as some of Simpson's associates did as well as three of them already pleading guilty contradicts your so called bounty hunter theory. Maybe you think the prosecutors tried to make Fuhrman their star witness but I sure don't see it that way. Fuhrman was called as a witness despite his past racial problems because he was the officer who first saw Simpson's glove behind Kaelin's room. Nicole was not alive and talking on the telephone when Simpson returned from Bundy or when Simpson was in the process of boarding his flight to Chicago over a half an hour after that. Your claims just get more ridiculous as time goes on. The video you keep posting a link to on this discussion group was created by taking portions of testimony out of context and even out of order to completely distort and misrepresent what was actually being discussed. Created to try and look authentic as support for the fantasy you want to so desperately believe. The video is a complete fraud.

bobaugust

[kjb19500]

This link was on the CBSSportsline football page.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10439310

[Big Ben]

Big Ben,........

bobaugust

bobaugust: Maybe you think the prosecutors tried to make Fuhrman their star witness but I sure don't see it that way. Fuhrman was called as a witness despite his past racial problems because he was the officer who first saw Simpson's glove behind Kaelin's room.

Furhman saw it that way, unfortunately.
You mean to say that the prosecution was not smart enough to recognize that Furhman's "past racial problems" would be the ticket for any defense attorney to challenge and to exploit.....Wow!

I'll bet he was the first one to see the glove behind Kaelin's room. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Huhm!!!! A proclaimed racist, just happens
to find the other glove that an alleged Black assailant pulled off and threw out in his own back yard.

bobaugust:Your claims just get more ridiculous as time goes on.

I haven't made but one major claim and that is that the "trial of the century" was a contrived fraud. Now what else are you speaking of that "gets more ridiculous as time goes on?"

bobaugust: Felony charges all based on the fact that guns were involved.....So what, bob!

bobaugust: The video you keep posting a link to on this discussion group was created by taking portions of testimony out of context and even out of order to completely distort and misrepresent what was actually being discussed. Created to try and look authentic as support for the fantasy you want to so desperately believe. The video is a complete fraud.

The continuity still remains, nothing was taking out of context. <*R> The YouTube hits on the Serpents Rising clips have now exceeded 20 thousand, much of the commentary is right on point. No one but foolish characters attempt to use vile, profane and other slanderous tactics to attempt to undermine the significance of the film. Get real!

[bobaugust]

bobaugust: Maybe you think the prosecutors tried to make Fuhrman their star witness but I sure don't see it that way. Fuhrman was called as a witness despite his past racial problems because he was the officer who first saw Simpson's glove behind Kaelin's room.

Furhman saw it that way, unfortunately.
You mean to say that the prosecution was not smart enough to recognize that Furhman's "past racial problems" would be the ticket for any defense attorney to challenge and to exploit.....Wow!

I'll bet he was the first one to see the glove behind Kaelin's room. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Huhm!!!! A proclaimed racist, just happens
to find the other glove that an alleged Black assailant pulled off and threw out in his own back yard.

bobaugust:Your claims just get more ridiculous as time goes on.

I haven't made but one major claim and that is that the "trial of the century" was a contrived fraud. Now what else are you speaking of that "gets more ridiculous as time goes on?"

bobaugust: Felony charges all based on the fact that guns were involved.....So what, bob!

bobaugust: The video you keep posting a link to on this discussion group was created by taking portions of testimony out of context and even out of order to completely distort and misrepresent what was actually being discussed. Created to try and look authentic as support for the fantasy you want to so desperately believe. The video is a complete fraud.

The continuity still remains, nothing was taking out of context. <*R> The YouTube hits on the Serpents Rising clips have now exceeded 20 thousand, much of the commentary is right on point. No one but foolish characters attempt to use vile, profane and other slanderous tactics to attempt to undermine the significance of the film. Get real!

Big Ben, it sounds like you're surprised to learn that Fuhrman was the first officer to see the glove behind Kaelin's room, now why doesn't that surprise me. I said your claims are getting more ridiculous responding to your new claim that Nicole was still alive talking on the telephone to her mother when Simpson was in the process of boarding his flight to Chicago. Since Simpson boarded the plane shortly after 11:30 how do you square that with Dr. Johnson's claim that Nicole spoke with her mother at 11:00? The fact is that both of those claims are contradicted by witness testimony and telephone records.

As I said all the felony charges are based on guns being involved. No guns, no felony charges. Yes your video is a pure fabrication editing statements that were spoken by attorneys, taking them out of context, and even changing the order they were said. So what if you've had 20 thousand hits on your video. Not only is 20,000 hits not very impressive by internet standards, in no way does that legitimize your fraudulent video.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

My comment was in response to bobaugust's "racial fiasco" remark. Here again, we struggle with a matter of perception. Had the jury been all White bobaugust, I highly doubt, would have made the "racial fiasco" remark. He, nor you, have any evidence that the jury ruled in the Simpson criminal trial on the basis of race. None of the jurors have ever expressed that fact, to my knowledge.

But here comes bobaugust with his omnipotent mind, he knows how the jury ruled or how the jury was influenced to rule. You couldn't wait to reprimand me about fueling the racial fire, but you failed to see his inflammatory proclamation. I think that you are yet to see your own myopic sense of reasoning; very interesting!
<*R>


Big Ben, my remark was regarding the defense strategy of making race the issue in the criminal trial not the murders. The predominately black female jury was receptive to Cochran's deceptions as well his false claims of evidence planting and tampering by the LAPD to frame a black defendant.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Big Ben, my remark was regarding the defense strategy of making race the issue in the criminal trial not the murders. The predominately black female jury was receptive to Cochran's deceptions as well his false claims of evidence planting and tampering by the LAPD to frame a black defendant.

bobaugust

bob
the prosecution started with several theories. imo, they failed to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. You somewhat admit this when you have attacked M Clarke C Darden for the way they handeled the case and you have claimed that the problems created by some witnesses were just 'MISTAKES'
In my opinion there were just too many 'MISTAKES' for the case to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it is not fair to claim the jury
was biased or that J Cochran was able to somehow trick the jury into Not
understanding the problems with the case.
imo
martin II

[Big Ben]

Third Man Agrees to Testify Against O.J.

Michael McClinton, 49, of Las Vegas, became the third man to agree to plead guilty to reduced charges in return for his testimony.

He told Justice of the Peace Joe M. Bonaventure he will plead guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. He could receive probation or up to 11 years in prison.

McClinton wielded a gun and acted like a police officer Sept. 13 when Simpson and five other men confronted collectibles dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley at an off-Strip casino hotel, according to police reports. Walter Alexander, a Simpson golfing buddy from Mesa, Ariz., who also took a plea deal and agreed to testify in the case, told police that McClinton gave a gun to him, but he never took it out of his waistband.

McClinton, a security guard whose guns were confiscated and who agreed to surrender his concealed weapons permit, spoke in court only to acknowledge he understood the terms of the plea agreement and to waive his preliminary hearing.


McClinton, a security guard whose guns were confiscated and who agreed to surrender his concealed weapons permit

Thanks bob.......

There it is right there! Just what I suspected. Now things should get interesting. Here is a guy who has a conceal and carry permit in Las Vegas, and owns multiple guns.

Now the question becomes is it illegal for someone to hire him, or simply ask him, as a security officer with a gun(s), to accompany the person to retrieve said person's personal property, if there is uncertain danger lurking behind closed doors?

If the other guy didn't pull his pistol from his waistband, then what charge do you have regarding he and his weapon?

I think that all that is now necessary is for Simpson to prove that the things that he went to retrieve actually belonged to him. I don't see the logic in someone robbing someone else of personal property owned by the first person.

At this point, I don't see anymore than a petit, or maybe, gross misdemeanor for "our hero" when all is said and done. Anything else could wind up looking like over charging, then Simpson goes unwarrantedly to prison, and is made again into a real hero again.

[bobaugust]

McClinton, a security guard whose guns were confiscated and who agreed to surrender his concealed weapons permit

Thanks bob.......

There it is right there! Just what I suspected. Now things should get interesting. Here is a guy who has a conceal and carry permit in Las Vegas, and owns multiple guns.

Now the question becomes is it illegal for someone to hire him, or simply ask him, as a security officer with a gun(s), to accompany the person to retrieve said person's personal property, if there is uncertain danger lurking behind closed doors?

If the other guy didn't pull his pistol from his waistband, then what charge do you have regarding he and his weapon?

I think that all that is now necessary is for Simpson to prove that the things that he went to retrieve actually belonged to him. I don't see the logic in someone robbing someone else of personal property owned by the first person.

At this point, I don't see anymore than a petit, or maybe, gross misdemeanor for "our hero" when all is said and done. Anything else could wind up looking like over charging, then Simpson goes unwarrantedly to prison, and is made again into a real hero again.

Big Ben, even if Simpson can prove he owned some of the merchandise that was taken, it's against the law for him to have taken it back using force and the fact that guns were involved makes it a felony crime. Having a concealed weapons permit does not allow someone to use their weapon to make threats, it only allows them to carry a concealed weapon. Simpson has claimed no guns were involved. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

bobaugust

[martin II]

McClinton, a security guard whose guns were confiscated and who agreed to surrender his concealed weapons permit

Thanks bob.......

There it is right there! Just what I suspected. Now things should get interesting. Here is a guy who has a conceal and carry permit in Las Vegas, and owns multiple guns.

Now the question becomes is it illegal for someone to hire him, or simply ask him, as a security officer with a gun(s), to accompany the person to retrieve said person's personal property, if there is uncertain danger lurking behind closed doors?

If the other guy didn't pull his pistol from his waistband, then what charge do you have regarding he and his weapon?

I think that all that is now necessary is for Simpson to prove that the things that he went to retrieve actually belonged to him. I don't see the logic in someone robbing someone else of personal property owned by the first person.

At this point, I don't see anymore than a petit, or maybe, gross misdemeanor for "our hero" when all is said and done. Anything else could wind up looking like over charging, then Simpson goes unwarrantedly to prison, and is made again into a real hero again.

Why is it that all the other people get a plea which could only give them probation except oj? It seems that oj is the only one the da is interested in prosecuting although many 'BROKE' the law.. Riccio the guy that set the whole caper up, brought oj into the room and illegally taped the event and sold it, has not even been charged.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Big Ben, even if Simpson can prove he owned some of the merchandise that was taken, it's against the law for him to have taken it back using force and the fact that guns were involved makes it a felony crime. Having a concealed weapons permit does not allow someone to use their weapon to make threats, it only allows them to carry a concealed weapon. Simpson has claimed no guns were involved. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

bobaugust

bob
Exactly what physical force did oj use. He had no gun. It seems he was only identifying his goods.Don't. The video did not show him taking any boxes out of the hotel.
imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

My comment was in response to bobaugust's "racial fiasco" remark. Here again, we struggle with a matter of perception. Had the jury been all White bobaugust, I highly doubt, would have made the "racial fiasco" remark. He, nor you, have any evidence that the jury ruled in the Simpson criminal trial on the basis of race. None of the jurors have ever expressed that fact, to my knowledge.

But here comes bobaugust with his omnipotent mind, he knows how the jury ruled or how the jury was influenced to rule. You couldn't wait to reprimand me about fueling the racial fire, but you failed to see his inflammatory proclamation. I think that you are yet to see your own myopic sense of reasoning; very interesting!

<*R>

Here is where we stumble, with your obvious lack of knowledge regarding my position or what exchanges I have had regarding these issues with various posters in the past.

You do much of the same assuming that you are so fond of accusing others of doing Ben. I don't suppose that it might have occurred to you that I've had this exchange with bob before, or that I don't agree with the idea that the criminal jury was motivated by race?

No, you'd rather just believe that anyone who doesn't fall in line with your reasoning is myopic and not worthy of the time of day or any type of consideration.

Your rush to judgment about me is equal to the rush to judgment that you enjoy pointing out regarding Simpson. Lovely prejudices you show Ben.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

Why is it that all the other people get a plea which could only give them probation except oj? It seems that oj is the only one the da is interested in prosecuting although many 'BROKE' the law.. Riccio the guy that set the whole caper up, brought oj into the room and illegally taped the event and sold it, has not even been charged.imo
martin II


hi martin,

OJ has the same option to plea. They want OJ to plea to avoid a trial. But, he's not very good at admitting when he's wrong. So, I'm not sure if he'll plea or not. If he was smart, he would.

[martin II]

hi martin,

OJ has the same option to plea. They want OJ to plea to avoid a trial. But, he's not very good at admitting when he's wrong. So, I'm not sure if he'll plea or not. If he was smart, he would.

tazzy hi

I am not sure that is correct. OJ's lawyer in vegas says oj has not been offered a plea. One does not get a plea unless it is offered by the DA IMO

Everything in this case is based on gun/s being brought into the room. One of the people that drew a gun and said"i am the police' which was impersanating a officer, has had his gun and robbery at gun point charges dropped and may get only probaiton.The other guy with a gun but did not draw it has had this charges dropped and may get probaiton.
The guy Ricco, that planned the whole caper, rented the hotel room, illegally taped the event and brought oj into the room has never been charged.
OJ had no gun.

hhmmmmmm

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

I am not sure that is correct. OJ's lawyer in vegas says oj has not been offered a plea. One does not get a plea unless it is offered by the DA IMO

Everything in this case is based on gun/s being brought into the room. One of the people that drew a gun and said"i am the police' which was impersanating a officer, has had his gun and robbery at gun point charges dropped and may get only probaiton.The other guy with a gun but did not draw it has had this charges dropped and may get probaiton.
The guy Ricco, that planned the whole caper, rented the hotel room, illegally taped the event and brought oj into the room has never been charged.
OJ had no gun.

hhmmmmmm

martin II

I heard that someone from the DA's office said that they want OJ to plea. And, the lawyers could request to talk to the DA's office about a plea offer. Yes, the DA would have to grant a plea offer. But, the lawyers for the defense can always request it.

Riccio is a snake like all of the players in this "operation". But, from what I've heard OJ knew he was going to tape it. He didn't know about him taping his phone calls though.

And, whether OJ actually held the gun or not, he was in charge of this "sting" opperation. He knew there were guns because he requested it. Why couldn't he just go in and tell them to give him his stuff? Why take a "gang" in to strong arm them? That seems to be how he operates.

[martin II]

I heard that someone from the DA's office said that they want OJ to plea. And, the lawyers could request to talk to the DA's office about a plea offer. Yes, the DA would have to grant a plea offer. But, the lawyers for the defense can always request it.

Riccio is a snake like all of the players in this "operation". But, from what I've heard OJ knew he was going to tape it. He didn't know about him taping his phone calls though.

And, whether OJ actually held the gun or not, he was in charge of this "sting" opperation. He knew there were guns because he requested it. Why couldn't he just go in and tell them to give him his stuff? Why take a "gang" in to strong arm them? That seems to be how he operates.

tazzy hi
What i am thinking is that all of these people have criminal records. except oj. haha
All of them would agree to whatever the DA request in order to get their charges dropped. I don't have any faith in what any of them are now saying happened.
two days ago oj's lawyer said the da had not offered oj any plea. Do you believe oj would be offered the same type ples as all the others with past criminal records. Or would his plea involve him serving 10--15 years while everyone else gets probation?

I think the person that planned the caper was Riccio.OJ was at home when riccio called him a month ago, told him what was going on and arrranged for the sellers to come to HIS rented hotel room with the stuff.

martin II

[Big Ben]

whether OJ actually held the gun or not, he was in charge of this "sting" opperation. He knew there were guns because he requested it. Why couldn't he just go in and tell them to give him his stuff? Why take a "gang" in to strong arm them? That seems to be how he operates.

Why couldn't he (OJ) just go in and tell them to give him his stuff? Why take a "gang" in to strong arm them?

The news commentators spoke of the sordid characters associated with the memorabilia business. Since OJ has dealt with his own memorabilia in the past common sense would suggest that he knew of the potential element that he was possibly going to be dealing with.

It would be like you knowing that a gang of, pants drooping, mean looking, potential thugs took your unlicensed bicycle. You know it's yours, but proving it's yours will be a long and tenuous process, if you can even find it. Now somebody you trust comes along and alerts you that these mean and evil looking thugs are momentarily within range for you to confront about taking your property. I think that curiosity and the desire to retrieve your property might motivate you to go, however, I don't think that you will go without the instruments to give you the physical and psychological advantage necessary for you to influence an intentional theif to return your valued property.

OJ may feel that the media has poisoned the minds of the general public to such extent that he wasn't going to receive any serious consideration from the police department, so he went to confront these thieves on his own.

Bad move? Possibly, but you can't have it both ways. OJ has been asked to comment on the Mark Furhmans of the L.A. police department before as well as the members of the Ramparts Precinct's elite "Crash Unit" now guilty of planting evidence on thousands of innocent men sent to prison. So one can comprehend Simpon's distrust of the police, if that were the case.


And, whether OJ actually held the gun or not, he was in charge of this "sting" opperation. He knew there were guns because he requested it.

This is hearsay, at this point, from deal makers seeking a plea to get the pressure off of themselves. It is, at this point, no more than a mere allegation. A man with a conceal and carry permit does not wait for someone else to tell him when he can wear his holster or carry his weapon. What is likely is that someone (Simpson) might say "don't carry your weapon because......", but short of that, it seems rather absurd that someone (Simpson) would tell a privileged conceal and carry person to bring along his gun.

[Big Ben]

Here is where we stumble, with your obvious lack of knowledge regarding my position or what exchanges I have had regarding these issues with various posters in the past.

You do much of the same assuming that you are so fond of accusing others of doing Ben. I don't suppose that it might have occurred to you that I've had this exchange with bob before, or that I don't agree with the idea that the criminal jury was motivated by race?

No, you'd rather just believe that anyone who doesn't fall in line with your reasoning is myopic and not worthy of the time of day or any type of consideration.

Your rush to judgment about me is equal to the rush to judgment that you enjoy pointing out regarding Simpson. Lovely prejudices you show Ben.

Kate

I don't know what exchanges that you have had with bob or anyone else for that matter. All I know is that I see all types of racial inuendo floated here and no one checks anyone about it. Then all of a sudden you decide that you're going to put me in check about something that I try to often avoid. All I said to you was be fair, and if you can't be, then don't get mad and bent out of shape with me for calling you on it.

bob's remark relative to a "racial fiasco" was an inappropriate presumption in my opinion. He has no evidence to reach that conclusion beyond the media spin of ill informed media pundits. I called him on it, and imo, there was no reason for you to put your erroneous assumptions regarding me into this mix.

However, that choice is yours, but don't expect anything less than a sharp rebuttal from me if you do.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't know what exchanges that you have had with bob or anyone else for that matter. All I know is that I see all types of racial inuendo floated here and no one checks anyone about it. Then all of a sudden you decide that you're going to put me in check about something that I try to often avoid. All I said to you was be fair, and if you can't be, then don't get mad and bent out of shape with me for calling you on it.

bob's remark relative to a "racial fiasco" was an inappropriate presumption in my opinion. He has no evidence to reach that conclusion beyond the media spin of ill informed media pundits. I called him on it, and imo, there was no reason for you to put your erroneous assumptions regarding me into this mix.

However, that choice is yours, but don't expect anything less than a sharp rebuttal from me if you do.

"I don't know what exchanges that you have had with bob or anyone else for that matter" ... and yet you go on and on about what you admit you know nothing about.

You're the one that made the statement about a racial animus getting in the way of fairness Ben so don't pout now and attempt to act as though it's something you "try to avoid". I think we've witnessed enough of your tactics to determine that your motives are less than innocent.

Kate

[Big Ben]

"I don't know what exchanges that you have had with bob or anyone else for that matter" ... and yet you go on and on about what you admit you know nothing about.

You're the one that made the statement about a racial animus getting in the way of fairness Ben so don't pout now and attempt to act as though it's something you "try to avoid". I think we've witnessed enough of your tactics to determine that your motives are less than innocent.

Kate

That's been my observation regarding this whole affair about the so called "trial of the century". Racial animus has been spun via the media, by the corrupt officials that have concealed crucial evidence in this case, and the media pundant's own influence on observers. It has all had a catapaulting effect, imo, on the hidden truths surrounding this affair. Now you may disagree with my perception, but you are dead wrong in suggesting that I am attempting to fan some type of racial hostility.

[bobaugust]

I don't know what exchanges that you have had with bob or anyone else for that matter. All I know is that I see all types of racial inuendo floated here and no one checks anyone about it. Then all of a sudden you decide that you're going to put me in check about something that I try to often avoid. All I said to you was be fair, and if you can't be, then don't get mad and bent out of shape with me for calling you on it.

bob's remark relative to a "racial fiasco" was an inappropriate presumption in my opinion. He has no evidence to reach that conclusion beyond the media spin of ill informed media pundits. I called him on it, and imo, there was no reason for you to put your erroneous assumptions regarding me into this mix.

However, that choice is yours, but don't expect anything less than a sharp rebuttal from me if you do.

Big Ben, I don't believe my remark was an inappropriate remark at all based on the reality of how Simpson's attorneys exploited the race issue in the criminal trial. The fact that some of the people who were with Simpson were black probably eliminates that possibility, but you never know. Everyone here including you is only speculating about what the evidence is or even if there is going to be a trial. We're all going to have to just wait and see.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, I don't believe my remark was an inappropriate remark at all based on the reality of how Simpson's attorneys exploited the race issue in the criminal trial. The fact that some of the people who were with Simpson were black probably eliminates that possibility, but you never know. Everyone here including you is only speculating about what the evidence is or even if there is going to be a trial. We're all going to have to just wait and see.

bobaugust

Big Ben, I don't believe my remark was an inappropriate remark at all based on the reality of how Simpson's attorneys exploited the race issue in the criminal trial.

Simpson's attorneys didn't do anything that any other decent attorney worth his salt would not have done, given the circumstances.

The prosecution served them a lob, when they brought Furhman to the witness stand. They themselves chose to put a maniac on the witness stand, one carrying heavy racial baggage. Now you think that defense attorneys weren't going to rigorously challenge him? Why, because he had a nice hair cut, a Brooks Brothers' Suit and a pair of Wingtip Shoes on? Don't be foolish. The reality is that the prosecution played whatever race card you people want to speak of, and they played it first, by attempting to dress up this vile wolf, this charlatan, in sheeps clothing.

Of course you don't see it as being inappropriate, however, it is just as inappropriate as my presuming anything about anyone else here in these posts, which many of you have called me on before.

You do not know what influenced that jury, you weren't in the jury room. They have said in previous interviews that race had nothing to do with their decision. Therefore they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they have stated. What makes you the authority to go around spouting your omnipotent opinion that their conclusions came as a result of an implied "racial fiasco".

It is the height of arrogance, imo, to keep insisting upon how others reached a conclusion based solely upon your own faulty, open-ended process of factor analysis.

Why don't you try to contact some of the jurors like you claim to acquire knowledge elsewhere. Then come back and tell us after you reached them how they said they thought in reaching their conclusions. Don't try to impress me with your own presumptive madness about what you know influenced people to make choices because, truthfully, you don't know.

[bobaugust]

Big Ben, I don't believe my remark was an inappropriate remark at all based on the reality of how Simpson's attorneys exploited the race issue in the criminal trial.

Simpson's attorneys didn't do anything that any other decent attorney worth his salt would not have done, given the circumstances.

The prosecution served them a lob, when they brought Furhman to the witness stand. They themselves chose to put a maniac on the witness stand, one carrying heavy racial baggage. Now you think that defense attorneys weren't going to rigorously challenge him? Why, because he had a nice hair cut, a Brooks Brothers' Suit and a pair of Wingtip Shoes on? Don't be foolish. The reality is that the prosecution played whatever race card you people want to speak of, and they played it first, by attempting to dress up this vile wolf, this charlatan, in sheeps clothing.

Of course you don't see it as being inappropriate, however, it is just as inappropriate as my presuming anything about anyone else here in these posts, which many of you have called me on before.

You do not know what influenced that jury, you weren't in the jury room. They have said in previous interviews that race had nothing to do with their decision. Therefore they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they have stated. What makes you the authority to go around spouting your omnipotent opinion that their conclusions came as a result of an implied "racial fiasco".

It is the height of arrogance, imo, to keep insisting upon how others reached a conclusion based solely upon your own faulty, open-ended process of factor analysis.

Why don't you try to contact some of the jurors like you claim to acquire knowledge elsewhere. Then come back and tell us after you reached them how they said they thought in reaching their conclusions. Don't try to impress me with your own presumptive madness about what you know influenced people to make choices because, truthfully, you don't know.

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

ITA :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[tv]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

Great post! :beer: :beer: :beer:

[BigBrat]

Totally fair and wise post!
I however would get such joy seeing simpson locked up tight for the rest of his murdering life for any reason!' He's lucky I'm not on his jury. lol
IMO
I agree with you Kate, his tasteless acts have left me cold. It further proved to me his guilt.
And no it's not a racial thing. So those that think it's because he's black can just rest their fingers.

OJ is black?
I'm sorry, I just could not resist.
The men involved were black and white. Can't identify a race card here. And if you can, maybe you should take a second look.
jmo

[BigBrat]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

Well put bobaugust! I think it's called Jury Nullification - to change the focus of the charges against the defendant as if that person were instead the victim. The Dream Team did a great job with that tatic. The jury was voting against the cops not whether OJ was guilty or not guilty of murder.
jmo

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
What i am thinking is that all of these people have criminal records. except oj. haha
All of them would agree to whatever the DA request in order to get their charges dropped. I don't have any faith in what any of them are now saying happened.
two days ago oj's lawyer said the da had not offered oj any plea. Do you believe oj would be offered the same type ples as all the others with past criminal records. Or would his plea involve him serving 10--15 years while everyone else gets probation?

I think the person that planned the caper was Riccio.OJ was at home when riccio called him a month ago, told him what was going on and arrranged for the sellers to come to HIS rented hotel room with the stuff.

martin II

Hi Martin,

I don't have any faith in what OJ's lawyers are saying either. They have definately been wrong before. Yes, I believe that OJ could request a plea and get some type of probation. But, that would mean admitting that there were guns. He is a liar.

Riccio definately had a hand in planning the meeting. However, OJ grabbed more people to "help" him at the last minute. OJ sounded like a mad man on the tape. He definately sounded in charge. There's no way to spin that in his favor. He was pissed and trying to scare the people there.

OJ is stupid for continuing on with his wierd behavior. How stupid is he to think that he can behave this way? And, what's even worse are the people who say he was just trying to get his stuff and they'd act the same way! He surrounded himself with the type of people that were there. That's his fault. I put him in the same catagory as the company he keeps.

No matter how you look at this what he did was illegal. He didn't follow the proper channels to try and get his stuff back. We don't run a vigilante type of government.

[tazzybaby]

Why couldn't he (OJ) just go in and tell them to give him his stuff? Why take a "gang" in to strong arm them?

The news commentators spoke of the sordid characters associated with the memorabilia business. Since OJ has dealt with his own memorabilia in the past common sense would suggest that he knew of the potential element that he was possibly going to be dealing with.

It would be like you knowing that a gang of, pants drooping, mean looking, potential thugs took your unlicensed bicycle. You know it's yours, but proving it's yours will be a long and tenuous process, if you can even find it. Now somebody you trust comes along and alerts you that these mean and evil looking thugs are momentarily within range for you to confront about taking your property. I think that curiosity and the desire to retrieve your property might motivate you to go, however, I don't think that you will go without the instruments to give you the physical and psychological advantage necessary for you to influence an intentional theif to return your valued property.

OJ may feel that the media has poisoned the minds of the general public to such extent that he wasn't going to receive any serious consideration from the police department, so he went to confront these thieves on his own.

Bad move? Possibly, but you can't have it both ways. OJ has been asked to comment on the Mark Furhmans of the L.A. police department before as well as the members of the Ramparts Precinct's elite "Crash Unit" now guilty of planting evidence on thousands of innocent men sent to prison. So one can comprehend Simpon's distrust of the police, if that were the case.


And, whether OJ actually held the gun or not, he was in charge of this "sting" opperation. He knew there were guns because he requested it.

This is hearsay, at this point, from deal makers seeking a plea to get the pressure off of themselves. It is, at this point, no more than a mere allegation. A man with a conceal and carry permit does not wait for someone else to tell him when he can wear his holster or carry his weapon. What is likely is that someone (Simpson) might say "don't carry your weapon because......", but short of that, it seems rather absurd that someone (Simpson) would tell a privileged conceal and carry person to bring along his gun.

Now somebody you trust comes along and alerts you that these mean and evil looking thugs are momentarily within range for you to confront about taking your property.

Someone you trust? So, you say that he TRUSTS Riccio? Please, please call it as it is. OJ was pissed. He wanted his stuff back. And, for the record, I don't believe it was his any more. There are lots of memorabilia pieces out there. Does that mean that he can do this any time he finds out that someone's out there selling stuff that USE TO BE his?

So, you're saying that he doesn't have to follow the law since he doesn't think it would help him anyway? OJ is not above the law. What if everyone had that mind set? We'd have people all over the place toting guns to confrontations because they feel like they've been wronged. It just doesn't work that way. That's why there are charges. I believe we all want a civilized civilization.

I don't believe what OJ says. He must follow our civilization's rules. If he doesn't he should go to jail.

[martin II]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

bob
you and others have for some time complained that the defense made changes of some pictures in oj;s house for the visit by the jury.
I don't find it wrong for the defense to try to show their client in the best light. If oj had had a wall full of naked women pictures before their visit, dont you think it would not be wise to take them down. Most of the jury members were women . It would be stupid to risk offending them in some way.
The jury knew oj was black and knew oj knew he was a black man ragardless
of how the media tried to paint him as some oreo simply because he had a white girlfriend/ex wife.The fact that oj had a large trophy room with awards
could not be hidden from them neither could that big house.

Defense lawyers are required to use every legal means possible to get their client off. Attacking some of the prosecutions witness testimony that you always seem to call just 'MISTAKES' is what they are suposse to do.
Otherwise there would be no reason to have defense cross.
martin II

[martin II]

Now somebody you trust comes along and alerts you that these mean and evil looking thugs are momentarily within range for you to confront about taking your property.

Someone you trust? So, you say that he TRUSTS Riccio? Please, please call it as it is. OJ was pissed. He wanted his stuff back. And, for the record, I don't believe it was his any more. There are lots of memorabilia pieces out there. Does that mean that he can do this any time he finds out that someone's out there selling stuff that USE TO BE his?

So, you're saying that he doesn't have to follow the law since he doesn't think it would help him anyway? OJ is not above the law. What if everyone had that mind set? We'd have people all over the place toting guns to confrontations because they feel like they've been wronged. It just doesn't work that way. That's why there are charges. I believe we all want a civilized civilization.

I don't believe what OJ says. He must follow our civilization's rules. If he doesn't he should go to jail.


tazzy hi

I believe that all of these criminals would agree to say whatever the prosecution request in order to save their butts.So whether oj actually asked the guy to BRING GUNS is open to question.

O j was at home minding his business when Ricco called him and informed him that those guys were selling his stuff and told him he would trick these sellers into bringing the goods to vegas.Riccio arranged for the sellers to come to Vegas with the stuff to sell it. Riccio rented the hotel room and placed the sellers in the room. Riccio then met oj and his people in the lobby and brought them to the room. Riccio them illegally taped the event.
Sounds like Riccio was the organizer and leader of the whole event.
Riccio will not be charged because he gave the DA the illegal tape.
Why is it that everyone goes free but oj??
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Why is it that everyone goes free but oj??


Probably because it's was Orenthal's stuff they were after & I doubt anyone would have went to that hotel room w/o Simpson.

If Simpson was "just home minding his own business" when Riccio called, he had the option of calling the police to retrieve his stuff. He didn't, because he knows that legally it might belong to the Goldmans. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I don't find it wrong for the defense to try to show their client in the best light.

Even if it's a lie?

[bobaugust]

bob
you and others have for some time complained that the defense made changes of some pictures in oj;s house for the visit by the jury.
I don't find it wrong for the defense to try to show their client in the best light. If oj had had a wall full of naked women pictures before their visit, dont you think it would not be wise to take them down. Most of the jury members were women . It would be stupid to risk offending them in some way.
The jury knew oj was black and knew oj knew he was a black man ragardless
of how the media tried to paint him as some oreo simply because he had a white girlfriend/ex wife.The fact that oj had a large trophy room with awards
could not be hidden from them neither could that big house.

Defense lawyers are required to use every legal means possible to get their client off. Attacking some of the prosecutions witness testimony that you always seem to call just 'MISTAKES' is what they are suposse to do.
Otherwise there would be no reason to have defense cross.
martin II

American Tragedy, Lawrence Schiller

"All day Saturday, members of the defense team are hard at work establishing O.J.'s African American identity at Rockingham.

Cathy Randa and Arnelle have worked hard on the project. Rockingham is now sparkling, the furniture arranged for maximum effect. O.J. wants a fire in each fireplace. A thousand dollars worth of flowers have been ordered. The America flag must fly on the flagpole out front.

A nude portrait of Paula Barbieri vanishes from its spot near the fireplace in Simpson's bedroom. There will be no pictures of white women in O.J.'s bedroom. A silver framed picture of O.J. and his mother goes on his bedside table.

The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women.

"We've got to have pictures of his family, his black family, up there," Cochran says.

Kardashian has photos enlarged at Kinko's, then framed nicely. One is even carefully placed in the kitchen. The jurors won't notice that they are color photocopies.

We're getting manipulative here, Bob (Shapiro) thinks. He is embarrassed. Then he resolutely shoves the feeling aside. If the prosecution is too dumb to check the photos they took of those walls the day after the murders, it's not our fault, he decides. If they can't figure out that we'll show the jury O.J.'s proud to be a black man, too bad.

Cochran wants something depicting African American history. "What about that framed poster from my office of the little girl trying to get to school?" he asks. Johnnie means Norman Rockwell's famous 1963 painting. 'The Problem We All Live WIth', in which a black grade school girl walks to school surrounded by federal marshals.

They hang the framed poster at the top of the stairs, where the jury can't miss it as they go up to Simpson's bedroom. Everyone is pleased. This has little to do with a search for the truth. This is stagecraft."

bobaugust

[martin II]

American Tragedy, Lawrence Schiller

"All day Saturday, members of the defense team are hard at work establishing O.J.'s African American identity at Rockingham.

Cathy Randa and Arnelle have worked hard on the project. Rockingham is now sparkling, the furniture arranged for maximum effect. O.J. wants a fire in each fireplace. A thousand dollars worth of flowers have been ordered. The America flag must fly on the flagpole out front.

A nude portrait of Paula Barbieri vanishes from its spot near the fireplace in Simpson's bedroom. There will be no pictures of white women in O.J.'s bedroom. A silver framed picture of O.J. and his mother goes on his bedside table.

The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women.

"We've got to have pictures of his family, his black family, up there," Cochran says.

Kardashian has photos enlarged at Kinko's, then framed nicely. One is even carefully placed in the kitchen. The jurors won't notice that they are color photocopies.

We're getting manipulative here, Bob (Shapiro) thinks. He is embarrassed. Then he resolutely shoves the feeling aside. If the prosecution is too dumb to check the photos they took of those walls the day after the murders, it's not our fault, he decides. If they can't figure out that we'll show the jury O.J.'s proud to be a black man, too bad.

Cochran wants something depicting African American history. "What about that framed poster from my office of the little girl trying to get to school?" he asks. Johnnie means Norman Rockwell's famous 1963 painting. 'The Problem We All Live WIth', in which a black grade school girl walks to school surrounded by federal marshals.

They hang the framed poster at the top of the stairs, where the jury can't miss it as they go up to Simpson's bedroom. Everyone is pleased. This has little to do with a search for the truth. This is stagecraft."

bobaugust

BOB

Nothing wrong with the defense arranging oj's house to show him in the best possible light to the jury.The prosecution did what they could to show him in a bad light to the jury.
This is a non issue.

martin II

[weezer]

BOB

Nothing wrong with the defense arranging oj's house to show him in the best possible light to the jury.The prosecution did what they could to show him in a bad light to the jury.
This is a non issue.

martin II

it's not that there was anything 'wrong' legally with what was done, but it is just another instance of the defense manipulating the jury. it's the same thing that has been done for orenthal his whole life.

[socaldiva]

The prosecution did what they could to show him in a bad light to the jury.


How? By telling the truth as to his actions?

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

I believe that all of these criminals would agree to say whatever the prosecution request in order to save their butts.So whether oj actually asked the guy to BRING GUNS is open to question.

O j was at home minding his business when Ricco called him and informed him that those guys were selling his stuff and told him he would trick these sellers into bringing the goods to vegas.Riccio arranged for the sellers to come to Vegas with the stuff to sell it. Riccio rented the hotel room and placed the sellers in the room. Riccio then met oj and his people in the lobby and brought them to the room. Riccio them illegally taped the event.
Sounds like Riccio was the organizer and leader of the whole event.
Riccio will not be charged because he gave the DA the illegal tape.
Why is it that everyone goes free but oj??
martin II

Hi Martin,

And I believe the biggest criminal of all of these characters, OJ Simpson, would definately say whatever he could and blame it on everyone else to save himself. He is a known liar and I don't know why you always believe his lies?? And, his lawyers have shown that they don't always know what's going on either. So, neither his nor his lawyer's word means anything. It's like hot air.

Riccio didn't tell OJ to bring guns. Riccio didn't tell OJ to bring henchmen. Riccio is a snake just like OJ. But, the difference is that Riccio didn't go storming in with guns yelling and screaming. That's why OJ goes to jail and Riccio doesn't. OJ took it a step too far. As with everything he does.

[martin II]

it's not that there was anything 'wrong' legally with what was done, but it is just another instance of the defense manipulating the jury. it's the same thing that has been done for orenthal his whole life.

The prosecution and the defense manipulated the jury to believe their side of the story.Both try very hard to influence the jury. Tha is why G Garcetti IMO assigned C Darden to the prosecution table.To influence the jury.

martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

And I believe the biggest criminal of all of these characters, OJ Simpson, would definately say whatever he could and blame it on everyone else to save himself. He is a known liar and I don't know why you always believe his lies?? And, his lawyers have shown that they don't always know what's going on either. So, neither his nor his lawyer's word means anything. It's like hot air.

Riccio didn't tell OJ to bring guns. Riccio didn't tell OJ to bring henchmen. Riccio is a snake just like OJ. But, the difference is that Riccio didn't go storming in with guns yelling and screaming. That's why OJ goes to jail and Riccio doesn't. OJ took it a step too far. As with everything he does.

After Alexander talked to the da and got his plea, he comes out and says oj told him to bring guns.That i believe is lie to get his plea and probation.Alexander did not even own the guns. The guy that owned the guns gave one to Alexander.
Ricco organized the whole event from start to finish. Ricco met oj in the lobby and brought them to HIS room. He walked in first and left the door open for oj and the others so there was no breaking and entering into the room.
Alexander was running away when a lady recognized him waiting for his plane at the airport to go home to Arizona and called le and he was caught there standing in line.
Everyone goes on probation but oj. Even the guy that pulled the gun out.

MARTIN ii

[Heyes]

Well put bobaugust! I think it's called Jury Nullification - to change the focus of the charges against the defendant as if that person were instead the victim. The Dream Team did a great job with that tatic. The jury was voting against the cops not whether OJ was guilty or not guilty of murder.
jmo


Bingo

Remember the acquittal of the cops and the riots?
Mr. johnny was very lucky with his timing and he used it!
By the time johnny had hyped up the OJ is black and a victim of the white man scenario. The threat of violence in L.A. if this black man was locked up was undeniable. I was in L.A. at the time. It wasn't pretty.
Those riots scared the peeps right outta me. It was very dangerous to travel across town. Awful time, just awful.
imo

[socaldiva]

[B][SIZE="5"]*snip*
Those riots scared the peeps right outta me. It was very dangerous to travel across town. Awful time, just awful.
imo

Those riots were awful. I packed up the family & went to visit other family members in Central California & I remember passing freight trains carrying military tanks that were headed south to deal with the rioting. :(

[tv]

tazzy hi

I believe that all of these criminals would agree to say whatever the prosecution request in order to save their butts.So whether oj actually asked the guy to BRING GUNS is open to question.

Oj was at home minding his business when Ricco called him and informed him that those guys were selling his stuff and told him he would trick these sellers into bringing the goods to vegas.Riccio arranged for the sellers to come to Vegas with the stuff to sell it. Riccio rented the hotel room and placed the sellers in the room. Riccio then met oj and his people in the lobby and brought them to the room. Riccio them illegally taped the event.
Sounds like Riccio was the organizer and leader of the whole event.
Riccio will not be charged because he gave the DA the illegal tape.
Why is it that everyone goes free but oj??
martin IIIt doesn't matter what Riccio told him. He could have just told Riccio he wasn't interested. No one twisted OJ Simpson's arm to storm in there to get the memorabilia. He could have attended the wedding and then flown back home. Instead, he ended up being arrested and spending a few days in the pokey. He's in trouble and still doesn't have what he went after. He has yet to learn that sometimes you just have to let things go.

[tv]

BOB

Nothing wrong with the defense arranging oj's house to show him in the best possible light to the jury.The prosecution did what they could to show him in a bad light to the jury.
This is a non issue.

martin IIThere's nothing wrong with showing your client in the best light if it's a truthful light. Replacing all the pictures in the house was dishonest because it didn't portray the real OJ Simpson. What did the prosecution invent to make him look bad? They just presented his real self to the jury. It's not a non-issue. It shows that the defense was capable of being deceitful.

[Big Ben]

So, you're saying that he doesn't have to follow the law since he doesn't think it would help him anyway? OJ is not above the law. What if everyone had that mind set? We'd have people all over the place toting guns to confrontations because they feel like they've been wronged. It just doesn't work that way. That's why there are charges. I believe we all want a civilized civilization.

I don't believe what OJ says. He must follow our civilization's rules. If he doesn't he should go to jail.

Men with conceal and carry permits are able to tote guns wherever they choose, unless there is a posted sign stating that they are disallowed in bringing them onto a certain property.

Due to the impending uncertainty the security guard was within his right to pull his pistol, and would be expected to do so, imo, if he were confronting known felons, which is what two individuals turned out to be. Maybe three, if Riccio is counted.

The police pull weapons on innocent people all the time, then re-holster them when they are certain that they are no longer in danger by those that they have confronted. The security guard, imo, would have had the same privilege as a police officer at that point.

You sound like their is one set of rules, I'm certain that your common sense tells you better.

I'm not advocating that OJ shouldn't follow the law, however, I must deal with certain realities regarding law enforcement. OJ, I'd wager, is doubly paranoid, given what has been revealed to him vis-a-vis his relationship with law enforcement and the media. He no longer has any perceived privilege with law enforcement, in fact I'd speculate, based upon the media hype, that they probably despise him. So what would be the point, why bother, I believe this is a possible thought that may have gone through his mind.

I'm certain that he perceived that the memorabilia was his. The court will have to rule in his favor or against him to make that determination. If the property belonged to him I don't see a legitimate robbery charge.

There would have been no rational justification for his action at all had he not presumed that these guys had his property. I doubt that he would have simply arose one day and said, it would be nice to engage in robbery today, despite your presumptions of how despicable you consider the man to be.

[Big Ben]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

Oh, the jury couldn't have been infleunced to find reasonable doubt in this trial, by forensic officers, after denying they had, being found on video tape stepping in and polluting the crime scene, .....or inexplicably finding the blood preservative, EDTA, in the blood on the back gate,....or inexplicably finding blood splattering on Simpson's sock, going through his skin, and coming out to splatter his sock in the same location on the opposite side of his ankle, .....or testimony by the impound lot employees that was in conflict with the prosecution's blood testimony, ......or the sorry excuse for the missing blood taking by the male nurse.....or Vannatter's sorry excuse for failing to deposit Simpson's blood across the street in the Police evidence office instead of carrying it 18 miles back out to the murder site, or a police officer going out of his way to deny that he had ever refferred to someone using the N-word when he could have been more believable by saying, "Yes I've said it",...............No, No! None of these things either by themselves or cumulatively could have caused the jury to arrive at reasonable doubt. For you, the jury was simply intellectually exploited by race! End of story!


Now tell me about the "Three Bears".

[bobaugust]

Oh, the jury couldn't have been infleunced to find reasonable doubt in this trial, by forensic officers, after denying they had, being found on video tape stepping in and polluting the crime scene, .....or inexplicably finding the blood preservative, EDTA, in the blood on the back gate,....or inexplicably finding blood splattering on Simpson's sock, going through his skin, and coming out to splatter his sock in the same location on the opposite side of his ankle, .....or testimony by the impound lot employees that was in conflict with the prosecution's blood testimony, ......or the sorry excuse for the missing blood taking by the male nurse.....or Vannatter's sorry excuse for failing to deposit Simpson's blood across the street in the Police evidence office instead of carrying it 18 miles back out to the murder site, or a police officer going out of his way to deny that he had ever refferred to someone using the N-word when he could have been more believable by saying, "Yes I've said it",...............No, No! None of these things either by themselves or cumulatively could have caused the jury to arrive at reasonable doubt. For you, the jury was simply intellectually exploited by race! End of story!


Now tell me about the "Three Bears".

No officer polluted the crime scene before the evidence was collected. No EDTA preserved blood was ever found in any blood stain. No blood went through Simpson's skin to splatter the opposite side of his sock. There was no missing blood. There was no testimony by any impound employee that conflicted with the prosecution blood testimony. Vannatter never carried any blood back to the murder scene. And Fuhrman's dumb lie that he never said the "n" word in the last ten years had absolutely nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence.

It seems you too were naively misled with these defense fairy tales just as the criminal trial jury was. Or maybe you aren't aware of the reasonable explanations and proof that contradicts the distorted and false claims you listed. Or maybe like the criminal trial jurors you would rather believe any claim no matter how unsupported, unrealistic, or unlikely it is as an excuse to ignore the reality of the evidence that proves Simpson guilty.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Replacing Paulas bedside picture and adding some pictures showing Afro
Americans and walking the jury through oj's trophy room had no
impact on the final jury NOT GUILTY verdict imo. The verdict was based on the prosecutions failure to present a conprehensive story that proved their case beyond a reasonabvle doubt.

The jury members knew Oj's ex and girl friend were white and that oj had white as well as black friends and that he was wealty enough to have a big house in a white neighborhood. They did not hold this against him and i have not read any statements by them that indicated that they were influenced
by what they saw.

I think that some that believe he was guilty have tried to make a race component to almost every move the defense made to get their client off.

They were at rockingham to see the layout of the property and to evaluate
some witnesses testimony as it relates to what the prosecution's theory was and i believe that is what they did.

If i was Cochran and i thought that a naked picture of a woman would in some way offend the women on the jury i would have removed it. None of this changed who oj was or what his lifestyle was.

This is a non issue. imo
Martin II

[martin II]

Men with conceal and carry permits are able to tote guns wherever they choose, unless there is a posted sign stating that they are disallowed in bringing them onto a certain property.

Due to the impending uncertainty the security guard was within his right to pull his pistol, and would be expected to do so, imo, if he were confronting known felons, which is what two individuals turned out to be. Maybe three, if Riccio is counted.

The police pull weapons on innocent people all the time, then re-holster them when they are certain that they are no longer in danger by those that they have confronted. The security guard, imo, would have had the same privilege as a police officer at that point.

You sound like their is one set of rules, I'm certain that your common sense tells you better.

I'm not advocating that OJ shouldn't follow the law, however, I must deal with certain realities regarding law enforcement. OJ, I'd wager, is doubly paranoid, given what has been revealed to him vis-a-vis his relationship with law enforcement and the media. He no longer has any perceived privilege with law enforcement, in fact I'd speculate, based upon the media hype, that they probably despise him. So what would be the point, why bother, I believe this is a possible thought that may have gone through his mind.

I'm certain that he perceived that the memorabilia was his. The court will have to rule in his favor or against him to make that determination. If the property belonged to him I don't see a legitimate robbery charge.

There would have been no rational justification for his action at all had he not presumed that these guys had his property. I doubt that he would have simply arose one day and said, it would be nice to engage in robbery today, despite your presumptions of how despicable you consider the man to be.

Big Ben
The facts are that after Ricco told oj about these guys were trying to sell some of his stolen stuff and told oj that he could arrange for oj to come face to face with them, Riccio got a list of oj's items from those two and gave it to oj.So oj had reason to believe that it was his stuff that they were trying to sell.As it turned out Riccio list was accurate.

Riccio met oj and his guys in the hotel lobby and brought them to the room
HE HAD RENTED and had the sellers waiting.He walked in the room first and left the door open for oj and the others to enter. So i don't think there was any BREAKING and entering into the room to commit robbery.

Actually it appears that Riccio invited both the sellers and oj and his people to
enter HIS room.

martin II

[weezer]

Replacing Paulas bedside picture and adding some pictures showing Afro
Americans and walking the jury through oj's trophy room had no
impact on the final jury NOT GUILTY verdict imo. The verdict was based on the prosecutions failure to present a conprehensive story that proved their case beyond a reasonabvle doubt.

The jury members knew Oj's ex and girl friend were white and that oj had white as well as black friends and that he was wealty enough to have a big house in a white neighborhood. They did not hold this against him and i have not read any statements by them that indicated that they were influenced
by what they saw.

I think that some that believe he was guilty have tried to make a race component to almost every move the defense made to get their client off.

They were at rockingham to see the layout of the property and to evaluate
some witnesses testimony as it relates to what the prosecution's theory was and i believe that is what they did.

If i was Cochran and i thought that a naked picture of a woman would in some way offend the women on the jury i would have removed it. None of this changed who oj was or what his lifestyle was.

This is a non issue. imo
Martin II

you are right -- nothing that was done changed who orenthal was or what his lifestyle was. orenthal james simpson was an abusive, raging bully who finally butchered two people: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

judging from Sydney's 911 call and the tapes of the Las Vegas incident, orenthal james simpson continues to be an abusive, raging bully. I say let's get him off the streets before he murders anyone else.

imo

[weezer]

Big Ben
The facts are that after Ricco told oj about these guys were trying to sell some of his stolen stuff and told oj that he could arrange for oj to come face to face with them, Riccio got a list of oj's items from those two and gave it to oj.So oj had reason to believe that it was his stuff that they were trying to sell.As it turned out Riccio list was accurate.

Riccio met oj and his guys in the hotel lobby and brought them to the room
HE HAD RENTED and had the sellers waiting.He walked in the room first and left the door open for oj and the others to enter. So i don't think there was any BREAKING and entering into the room to commit robbery.

Actually it appears that Riccio invited both the sellers and oj and his people to
enter HIS room.

martin II

doesn't matter whose room it was -- orenthal and his thugs burst through the door screaming and brandishing weapons. orenthal's gang of thugs brought weapons at the request of orenthal. orenthal is heard on the tape raging (sounded familiar didn't it?). I have read that there are other tapes of orenthal before and after the incident --

imo

[martin II]

you are right -- nothing that was done changed who orenthal was or what his lifestyle was. orenthal james simpson was an abusive, raging bully who finally butchered two people: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

judging from Sydney's 911 call and the tapes of the Las Vegas incident, orenthal james simpson continues to be an abusive, raging bully. I say let's get him off the streets before he murders anyone else.

imo

So maby because of sydney's 911 call oj should be put in jail in vegas.

In case you do not kow it. the police responded to Sydney's 911 call at the home and talked to sydney and oj and determined that no abuse had taken place.That Sydney had wanted to go to a friends party that night and oj had said no.She became angry and made that call.
End of story.
In the vegas case oj had no gun and as far as what i have read he made no threat against either of the criminals that were trying to sell his stolen goods.

martin II

[martin II]

doesn't matter whose room it was -- orenthal and his thugs burst through the door screaming and brandishing weapons. orenthal's gang of thugs brought weapons at the request of orenthal. orenthal is heard on the tape raging (sounded familiar didn't it?). I have read that there are other tapes of orenthal before and after the incident --

imo

Wrong
There was only ONE gun pulled and that was by the guy that had a legal permit.It has not been proven that oj asked Alexander to bring guns.Riccio said he made all of the tapes.

martin II

[martin II]

doesn't matter whose room it was -- orenthal and his thugs burst through the door screaming and brandishing weapons. orenthal's gang of thugs brought weapons at the request of orenthal. orenthal is heard on the tape raging (sounded familiar didn't it?). I have read that there are other tapes of orenthal before and after the incident --

imo

From what i understand breaking and entering takes place when one enters
a room/house uninvited by the person in control of the space.

Ricco was in charge of the rented hotel room.He invited both parties to enter.
The court and jury will decide if it matters or not.

martin II

[tv]

Replacing Paulas bedside picture and adding some pictures showing Afro
Americans and walking the jury through oj's trophy room had no
impact on the final jury NOT GUILTY verdict imo. The verdict was based on the prosecutions failure to present a conprehensive story that proved their case beyond a reasonabvle doubt.

The jury members knew Oj's ex and girl friend were white and that oj had white as well as black friends and that he was wealty enough to have a big house in a white neighborhood. They did not hold this against him and i have not read any statements by them that indicated that they were influenced
by what they saw.

I think that some that believe he was guilty have tried to make a race component to almost every move the defense made to get their client off.

They were at rockingham to see the layout of the property and to evaluate
some witnesses testimony as it relates to what the prosecution's theory was and i believe that is what they did.

If i was Cochran and i thought that a naked picture of a woman would in some way offend the women on the jury i would have removed it. None of this changed who oj was or what his lifestyle was.

This is a non issue. imo
Martin IIThis is not a non-issue. I didn't say it influenced the jury. I have no idea if it did or not. What it does is show that the defense was dishonest. I don't know why you keep going on about a naked woman. The dishonest part is that they removed pictures of one race and replaced them with another. If they were only there to see the layout why bother to change the pictures?

[weezer]

So maby because of sydney's 911 call oj should be put in jail in vegas.

In case you do not kow it. the police responded to Sydney's 911 call at the home and talked to sydney and oj and determined that no abuse had taken place.That Sydney had wanted to go to a friends party that night and oj had said no.She became angry and made that call.
End of story.
In the vegas case oj had no gun and as far as what i have read he made no threat against either of the criminals that were trying to sell his stolen goods.

martin II

the police also responded to Nicole's calls -- so what? orenthal manipulated the situation again!

in the vegas case, orenthal requested that his thugs bring weapons -- they did.

[bobaugust]

Replacing Paulas bedside picture and adding some pictures showing Afro
Americans and walking the jury through oj's trophy room had no
impact on the final jury NOT GUILTY verdict imo. The verdict was based on the prosecutions failure to present a conprehensive story that proved their case beyond a reasonabvle doubt.

The jury members knew Oj's ex and girl friend were white and that oj had white as well as black friends and that he was wealty enough to have a big house in a white neighborhood. They did not hold this against him and i have not read any statements by them that indicated that they were influenced
by what they saw.

I think that some that believe he was guilty have tried to make a race component to almost every move the defense made to get their client off.

They were at rockingham to see the layout of the property and to evaluate
some witnesses testimony as it relates to what the prosecution's theory was and i believe that is what they did.

If i was Cochran and i thought that a naked picture of a woman would in some way offend the women on the jury i would have removed it. None of this changed who oj was or what his lifestyle was.

This is a non issue. imo
Martin II

Replacing Paula's nude picture is not the issue. Simpson's trophy room is not the issue. The issue is the fantasy Simpson's defense tried to spin for the jury that Simpson was framed by the LAPD simply because he was a black man. In their fantasy they used Mark Fuhrman as a villain who they said must have planted evidence because they claimed he was a racist. And to show the jury that Simpson was a victim because he was black they replaced all of the many photographs in his house showing him with his white friends with framed photocopies of his black family. And then prominently displaying at the top of the stairs to his bedroom a poster from Cochran's office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals.

bobaugust

[tv]

Replacing Paula's nude picture is not the issue. Simpson's trophy room is not the issue. The issue is the fantasy Simpson's defense tried to spin for the jury that Simpson was framed by the LAPD simply because he was a black man. In their fantasy they used Mark Fuhrman as a villain who they said must have planted evidence because they claimed he was a racist. And to show the jury that Simpson was a victim because he was black they replaced all of the many photographs in his house showing him with his white friends with framed photocopies of his black family. And then prominently displaying at the top of the stairs to his bedroom a poster from Cochran's office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals.

bobaugustWell said! :beer: