O.J. In The News Again

[tv]

What is a prestine Bentley? I'm not sure what that entire post meant. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

why are you toasting incorrect information?

Because it never stopped you, :).

[William Anthony]

What is a prestine Bentley? I'm not sure what that entire post meant. :shrug:

I took the post to mean that the whole scenario did not fit with a man intent on murder. It surely was a silly attempt to establish an alibi and some suggest was his motivation for asking for money and saying he was hungry. The jury saw it as a man, going for fast food, not wanting to cook, and, who wanted to eat, relax and rest before taking a plane.

[bobaugust]

I took the post to mean that the whole scenario did not fit with a man intent on murder. It surely was a silly attempt to establish an alibi and some suggest was his motivation for asking for money and saying he was hungry. The jury saw it as a man, going for fast food, not wanting to cook, and, who wanted to eat, relax and rest before taking a plane.

And the significant facts are that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit on that trip to McDonalds returning to Rockingham about an hour before the murders.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Because it never stopped you, :).

why are you being rude? the information that you toasted was incorrect -- :punch:

[Just Peachy]

Because it never stopped you, :).

You proved you have no credibility by cheering on THE WRONG INFORMATION. That's funny! Good going!

LMAO

:beer:

[socaldiva]

why are you being rude? the information that you toasted was incorrect -- :punch:

I think you've answered your own question ;) :)

[tv]

I took the post to mean that the whole scenario did not fit with a man intent on murder. It surely was a silly attempt to establish an alibi and some suggest was his motivation for asking for money and saying he was hungry. The jury saw it as a man, going for fast food, not wanting to cook, and, who wanted to eat, relax and rest before taking a plane.

Simpson had never hung out with Kato before, yet he sought him out several times that evening. He also stated the Bronco was his favorite vehicle and he preferred to drive it over anything else. I've always wondered why he took Kato to McDonald's in the Bentley. Also, giving Kato the security code to the alarm system was a first. Those are just a few of the things he did that night that I find out of character for him.

[socaldiva]

Simpson had never hung out with Kato before, yet he sought him out several times that evening. He also stated the Bronco was his favorite vehicle and he preferred to drive it over anything else. I've always wondered why he took Kato to McDonald's in the Bentley. Also, giving Kato the security code to the alarm system was a first. Those are just a few of the things he did that night that I find out of character for him.

Good points! Maybe Simpson already had his killing gear in the front passenger seat of the Bronco. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Simpson had never hung out with Kato before, yet he sought him out several times that evening. He also stated the Bronco was his favorite vehicle and he preferred to drive it over anything else. I've always wondered why he took Kato to McDonald's in the Bentley. Also, giving Kato the security code to the alarm system was a first. Those are just a few of the things he did that night that I find out of character for him.

Tv,

I believe the relevant testimony was that Kato asked Simpson to tag along. I may prefer steak to hamburger, but that does not mean I would not appreciate an occasional change, :).

[William Anthony]

why are you being rude? the information that you toasted was incorrect -- :punch:

I was not being rude but pointing out a fact, as it relates to your claim that there were size 12, pigen-toed shoe prints found at the scence.

[William Anthony]

You proved you have no credibility by cheering on THE WRONG INFORMATION. That's funny! Good going!

LMAO

:beer:

If I am not mistakened, you cheered on a post in regard to pigen-toed shoeprints being found at the scene.

:biggrin:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[weezer]

I was not being rude but pointing out a fact, as it relates to your claim that there were size 12, pigen-toed shoe prints found at the scence.

:confused: you toasted a post that stated incorrect and inaccurate information pertaining to the timeline when orenthal went to eat.

[weezer]

If I am not mistakened, you cheered on a post in regard to pigen-toed shoeprints being found at the scene.

:biggrin:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

what does this have to do with you toasting inaccurate and incorrect information about the timeline orenthal went to eat?

[Therese]

Simpson had never hung out with Kato before, yet he sought him out several times that evening. He also stated the Bronco was his favorite vehicle and he preferred to drive it over anything else. I've always wondered why he took Kato to McDonald's in the Bentley. Also, giving Kato the security code to the alarm system was a first. Those are just a few of the things he did that night that I find out of character for him.
Just a quick note about being "out of his character". Many things about this crime bothers me. One point that I continually ponder is the fact that I believe OJ had been tested sometime ago and wound up with an IQ of less than 100...(100 being average), somewhere around 80...80 and below indicating intelligence of a slightly retarded adult to severely retarded. I'm pretty new to these boards, so this topic has probably been discussed previously. Sorry if I broke a rule here.

~ Sadie

[Just Peachy]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089696]If I am not mistakened, you cheered on a post in regard to pigen-toed shoeprints being found at the scene.

:QUOTE]Need a tissue for your dribble?

As always, you are mistaken.

LOL

[William Anthony]

:confused: you toasted a post that stated incorrect and inaccurate information pertaining to the timeline when orenthal went to eat.

As you did with your claim that pigen-toes shoeprints were found.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089696]If I am not mistakened, you cheered on a post in regard to pigen-toed shoeprints being found at the scene.

:QUOTE]Need a tissue for your dribble?

As always, you are mistaken.

LOL

we are all more wrong than we are right, :).

[socaldiva]

*snip*
One point that I continually ponder is the fact that I believe OJ had been tested sometime ago and wound up with an IQ of less than 100...(100 being average), somewhere around 80...

I also recall reading that he had an IQ in the 80's. Perhaps that's why he made so many critical errors in leaving evidence at the crime scene, his vehicle & home.

[Just Peachy]

[QUOTE=Just Peachy;9089755]

we are all more wrong than we are right, :).

Speak for yourself honey.

:rolleyes:

[weezer]

As you did with your claim that pigen-toes shoeprints were found.

:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089814]

Speak for yourself honey.

:rolleyes:

Honey is bee excrement, which I find offesive and "we" is all inclusive.

[William Anthony]

:rolleyes:

Truth may often bring ire.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=Just Peachy;9089849]

Honey is bee excrement, which I find offesive and "we" is all inclusive.

I believe it was your use of 'we' that the poster objected to -- all inclusive and soforth. ;)

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089851]

I believe it was your use of 'we' that the poster objected to -- all inclusive and soforth. ;)

Because the "we" is all inclusive I was speaking for myself and, hence, the poster's advisement was not needed.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9089880]

Because the "we" is all inclusive I was speaking for myself and, hence, the poster's advisement was not needed.

so you intended for your post to translate to: "I am more wrong than I am right"

I applaud your honesty.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089884]

so you intended for your post to translate to: "I am more wrong than I am right"

I applaud your honesty.

No, I intended my post to translate as it did, which was to speak for all people. I realize that to some it is an alien concept that they can be wrong and I find that those who feel that way often protest when someone suggest that they can be. That protestation seems to be a symptom of the affliction.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9089913]

No, I intended my post to translate as it did, which was to speak for all people. I realize that to some it is an alien concept that they can be wrong and I find that those who feel that way often protest when someone suggest that they can be. That protestation seems to be a symptom of the affliction.

then I'm with the poster who suggested you speak for yourself. I realize that to some, it is an alien concept that they cannot speak for all --

[Just Peachy]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089884]

so you intended for your post to translate to: "I am more wrong than I am right"

I applaud your honesty.

I knew he'd have to admit it eventually. LOL

:seeya:

[Just Peachy]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089966]

then I'm with the poster who suggested you speak for yourself. I realize that to some, it is an alien concept that they cannot speak for all --

Thank you.

:beer:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9089966]

then I'm with the poster who suggested you speak for yourself. I realize that to some, it is an alien concept that they cannot speak for all --


I see that there are two of you, who protest too much. You must be afflicted with the affliction, :).

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9089968]


I see that there are two of you, who protest too much. You must be afflicted with the affliction, :).

you need to stop the personal attacks. you don't know me or anything about me.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9090002]

you need to stop the personal attacks. you don't know me or anything about me.

This is not a personal attack but an explanation as to what I meant by those who do not feel they can be wrong and attacked me when I made the statement that we are all more wrong than we are right. I think you and those aligned with you should stop the personal attacks. IT IS OBVIOUS, IMHO, THAT THE WORD WE IN MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT MEANT ALL. I THINK YOUR RESPONSES WERE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND BAITING.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9090002]

you need to stop the personal attacks. you don't know me or anything about me.

It is time for me to move on to bigger and better things. I have enjoyed the verbal josts with you and your cadre. I will leave others to idle away their leisure hours with you-all inclusive.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9090003]

It is time for me to move on to bigger and better things. I have enjoyed the verbal josts with you and your cadre. I will leave others to idle away their leisure hours with you-all inclusive.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

I assume you meant 'joust' -- :chicken: :chicken:

[jotun]

One point that I continually ponder is the fact that I believe OJ had been tested sometime ago and wound up with an IQ of less than 100...(100 being average), somewhere around 80...80 and below indicating intelligence of a slightly retarded adult to severely retarded.

~ Sadie

sadie-diva-all---Yes O.J.was tested. Dr. Lenore Walker administered a battery of tests:

"O.J.'s cognitive functioning was normal.

O.J.'s social skills were remarkable.

O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE was in the SUPERIOR RANGE."

IMO

jotun

[socaldiva]

sadie-diva-all---Yes O.J.was tested. Dr. Lenore Walker administered a battery of tests:

"O.J.'s cognitive functioning was normal.

O.J.'s social skills were remarkable.

O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE was in the SUPERIOR RANGE."

IMO

jotun

What source are you quoting here?

[weezer]

What source are you quoting here?

the inference is that the source is Dr Walker

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9090124]

I assume you meant 'joust' -- :chicken: :chicken:

No, that's not what I meant, as joust implies competition, of which you provided a tad bit, smile.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9090149]

No, that's not what I meant, as joust implies competition, of which you provided a tad bit, smile.

then pray tell what is a 'verbal jost'?

[socaldiva]

the inference is that the source is Dr Walker

Right, I understood that, but I wanted to know where he read these assessments of Orenthal that he attributes to Dr Walker, being that he's got in it quotes.

[weezer]

Right, I understood that, but I wanted to know where he read these assessments of Orenthal that he attributes to Dr Walker, being that he's got in it quotes.

oh sorry -- I tried to find something on it but the only thing I found was where Dr Walker said orenthal fit the profile of a batterer. . .

[socaldiva]

oh sorry -- I tried to find something on it but the only thing I found was where Dr Walker said orenthal fit the profile of a batterer. . .

No problem. I tried also, but all I came up with was that Lenore Walker's notes were used to impeach Orenthal's testimony in the civil trial.

[weezer]

No problem. I tried also, but all I came up with was that Lenore Walker's notes were used to impeach Orenthal's testimony in the civil trial.

wasn't it Walker's notes that the criminal defense hid during the criminal trial because they proved that the defense and orenthal lied about what was known and when as well as the very negative description of orenthal?

[socaldiva]

wasn't it Walker's notes that the criminal defense hid during the criminal trial because they proved that the defense and orenthal lied about what was known and when as well as the very negative description of orenthal?

I don't recall, but it sounds likely, considering that Dr Walker said Orenthal did indeed hear the message from Paula dumping him that evening.

[William Anthony]

oh sorry -- I tried to find something on it but the only thing I found was where Dr Walker said orenthal fit the profile of a batterer. . .


Was there anything in Dr. Walker's notes saying he fit the profile of a murderer?

[weezer]

Was there anything in Dr. Walker's notes saying he fit the profile of a murderer?

she didn't have to -- she has written extensively: Most of this will bring to mind Nicole's diary and things she said to family and friends:

Tension Building/Explosion Model
In 1979, Lenore Walker, author of The Battered Woman, developed the Tension Building/Explosion Model of the Cycle of Violence. Walker based her cycle on research conducted on 120 battered women. The Tension Building/Explosion cycle has been used since that time in countless books and articles to indicate what is happening in the lives of abused women. The Tension Building/Explosion Model involves three stages:

Tension Building Phase
During the tension building phase the abuser becomes more temperamental and critical of the victim. As the tension escalates, the victim feels as if she is "walking on eggshells." The victim may try to placate the abuser to prevent the abuse.


Acute Explosive Phase
The abuser verbally or physically attacks the victim. This is much more intense than during the tension building phase and may increase in intensity with each explosive phase.


The Honeymoon Phase
The batterer expresses remorse over his behavior and promises to change. The batterer is charming and may offer gifts such as flowers, jewelry, perfume and candy.


When a woman leaves her abuser, the abuser goes through a process of emotions and behaviors that is quite predictable. This is the separation process:

Indifference
At first, the abuser says such things as, "Go ahead and leave. I don't care. I've got lots of women after me. I don't need you."

Manipulative "Anger"
Now the abuser shows his "anger". Abusers are no angrier than anyone else. Anger is a tool abusers use to gain and maintain control. If there are children in the family, for instance, he may claim his outrage is because the survivor is keeping the children from him and "I demand the right to see my kids!"

Manipulative Courting
The abuser tries to hook the victim back into the relationship - and succeeds in more than a few cases. The abuser begins to court the survivor again, perhaps with a trip down memory lane: "Remember when we met?' "Remember when the baby was born?" He also promises to change: 'I'll quit drinking." "I'll get counseling." He won't discuss his choice to use abuse; he will talk only about past good times and the promise of good times to come. He says he wants her back.

Defaming the Survivor
He tells lies about the survivor to everyone who knows her. His goal is to isolate her socially and to wipe out any support she might have among friends and family. Many times, the woman does not know about the lies. One of the most common lies is that the woman was having an affair, a lie that he can use to justify his violent behavior.

Renewed Manipulative "Anger"
Once he recognizes the survivor is not coming back to him, he renews his manipulative "anger". The victim may be in danger. The abuser is more likely to carry out threats he made during the relationship and earlier in the separation cycle.

[William Anthony]

she didn't have to -- she has written extensively: Most of this will bring to mind Nicole's diary and things she said to family and friends:

Tension Building/Explosion Model
In 1979, Lenore Walker, author of The Battered Woman, developed the Tension Building/Explosion Model of the Cycle of Violence. Walker based her cycle on research conducted on 120 battered women. The Tension Building/Explosion cycle has been used since that time in countless books and articles to indicate what is happening in the lives of abused women. The Tension Building/Explosion Model involves three stages:

Tension Building Phase
During the tension building phase the abuser becomes more temperamental and critical of the victim. As the tension escalates, the victim feels as if she is "walking on eggshells." The victim may try to placate the abuser to prevent the abuse.


Acute Explosive Phase
The abuser verbally or physically attacks the victim. This is much more intense than during the tension building phase and may increase in intensity with each explosive phase.


The Honeymoon Phase
The batterer expresses remorse over his behavior and promises to change. The batterer is charming and may offer gifts such as flowers, jewelry, perfume and candy.


When a woman leaves her abuser, the abuser goes through a process of emotions and behaviors that is quite predictable. This is the separation process:

Indifference
At first, the abuser says such things as, "Go ahead and leave. I don't care. I've got lots of women after me. I don't need you."

Manipulative "Anger"
Now the abuser shows his "anger". Abusers are no angrier than anyone else. Anger is a tool abusers use to gain and maintain control. If there are children in the family, for instance, he may claim his outrage is because the survivor is keeping the children from him and "I demand the right to see my kids!"

Manipulative Courting
The abuser tries to hook the victim back into the relationship - and succeeds in more than a few cases. The abuser begins to court the survivor again, perhaps with a trip down memory lane: "Remember when we met?' "Remember when the baby was born?" He also promises to change: 'I'll quit drinking." "I'll get counseling." He won't discuss his choice to use abuse; he will talk only about past good times and the promise of good times to come. He says he wants her back.

Defaming the Survivor
He tells lies about the survivor to everyone who knows her. His goal is to isolate her socially and to wipe out any support she might have among friends and family. Many times, the woman does not know about the lies. One of the most common lies is that the woman was having an affair, a lie that he can use to justify his violent behavior.

Renewed Manipulative "Anger"
Once he recognizes the survivor is not coming back to him, he renews his manipulative "anger". The victim may be in danger. The abuser is more likely to carry out threats he made during the relationship and earlier in the separation cycle.

Did Dr. Walker determine that Simpson had acted out in the "Renewed Manipulative Anger" stage, or that he had ever entered that stage? With all due respect, the question is the evidence to show Simpson progressed from an abuser to a killer.

[martin II]

Did Dr. Walker determine that Simpson had acted out in the "Renewed Manipulative Anger" stage, or that he had ever entered that stage? With all due respect, the question is the evidence to show Simpson progressed from an abuser to a killer.

william
I have not been here for some time. I did not know it was still open
how are you?

martin II

[martin II]

Did Dr. Walker determine that Simpson had acted out in the "Renewed Manipulative Anger" stage, or that he had ever entered that stage? With all due respect, the question is the evidence to show Simpson progressed from an abuser to a killer.

william
I have not been here for some time. I did not know it was still open
how are you?

martin II

[jotun]

she didn't have to -- she has written extensively: Most of this will bring to mind Nicole's diary and things she said to family and friends:

Tension Building/Explosion Model
In 1979, Lenore Walker, author of The Battered Woman, developed the Tension Building/Explosion Model of the Cycle of Violence. Walker based her cycle on research conducted on 120 battered women. The Tension Building/Explosion cycle has been used since that time in countless books and articles to indicate what is happening in the lives of abused women. The Tension Building/Explosion Model involves three stages:

Tension Building Phase
During the tension building phase the abuser becomes more temperamental and critical of the victim. As the tension escalates, the victim feels as if she is "walking on eggshells." The victim may try to placate the abuser to prevent the abuse.


Acute Explosive Phase
The abuser verbally or physically attacks the victim. This is much more intense than during the tension building phase and may increase in intensity with each explosive phase.


The Honeymoon Phase
The batterer expresses remorse over his behavior and promises to change. The batterer is charming and may offer gifts such as flowers, jewelry, perfume and candy.


When a woman leaves her abuser, the abuser goes through a process of emotions and behaviors that is quite predictable. This is the separation process:

Indifference
At first, the abuser says such things as, "Go ahead and leave. I don't care. I've got lots of women after me. I don't need you."

Manipulative "Anger"
Now the abuser shows his "anger". Abusers are no angrier than anyone else. Anger is a tool abusers use to gain and maintain control. If there are children in the family, for instance, he may claim his outrage is because the survivor is keeping the children from him and "I demand the right to see my kids!"

Manipulative Courting
The abuser tries to hook the victim back into the relationship - and succeeds in more than a few cases. The abuser begins to court the survivor again, perhaps with a trip down memory lane: "Remember when we met?' "Remember when the baby was born?" He also promises to change: 'I'll quit drinking." "I'll get counseling." He won't discuss his choice to use abuse; he will talk only about past good times and the promise of good times to come. He says he wants her back.

Defaming the Survivor
He tells lies about the survivor to everyone who knows her. His goal is to isolate her socially and to wipe out any support she might have among friends and family. Many times, the woman does not know about the lies. One of the most common lies is that the woman was having an affair, a lie that he can use to justify his violent behavior.

Renewed Manipulative "Anger"
Once he recognizes the survivor is not coming back to him, he renews his manipulative "anger". The victim may be in danger. The abuser is more likely to carry out threats he made during the relationship and earlier in the separation cycle.


OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL:

Have complained to everyone here about this including reporting to the "moderator" over & over & over & over again.All to no avail.Checked the only other thread left. Sure enough posts there are about this "news again" while this one is about that, the "trial". AMAZING. It's really not that complicated!!! Just choose the proper topic CLICK and post away.

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa---Make that SHE not he. Then fits Nicole to a T.


SHE didn't have a "diary". Was written for the divorce lawyers.

He placted SHE.

SHE attacked him with fists and feet which some testified to in depos.

SHE promised to change.

SHE always accused him of many affairs.

SHE lied to friends and family.
He didn't separate SHE from anyone.Think everyone wishes he had.

SHE sent the remember when WEDDING AND BIRTH video with the we were so happy letter.

SHE sent the please take me back am so sorry I hurt you love letter.

He broke-up with SHE. Had it planned for months & told others of that plan. Could hardly wait, was looking forward to his promise to SHE for a year being over.He certainly didn't want her back again.

All:
Notice, we haven't seen a real battered woman since 94 on tv.Before then saw alot of photos with their broken noses and jaws, black eyes, & missing teeth. Our resident battered women need to make the gorgeous kind-hearted O.J.the villian.And the beautiful confronter Nicole the "victim" and poster girl for their cause.Instead of the BATTERER that SHE was.SHE not only attacked O.J.numerous times but also slapped his maid and even hit her own mother.

William:
Dr. Lenore Walker was a DEFENCE EXPERT.
She said " O.J. did NOT fit the profile of a batterer who murders.He has good control over his impulses.He appears to control his emotions well.."
Was NOT a stalker...He could control his anger.He had a bad temper,but he YELLED AND LEFT or just LEFT".

Walker admisistered a battery of tests:

O.J.'s cognitive functioning was normal:
O.J.'s social skills remarkable:
O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE in the SUPERIOR RANGE.

"O.J.has made remarkable progress...By the time we finished working together he was able to admit he battered Nicole THAT NIGHT [89]...Understood that even 1 incident characterized him as a batterer.But Simpson is NOT a end-stage batterer as the prosecution charges.At worst he might fit the begining stage.A fuge state is the ONLY possible way O.J.could be guilty. A fuge state or a disassociative state is a distrubed state that the sufferer can not afterwards recall.Has no sence of being at the murder scence,no memory of the crime.But Walker considered the scenario UNLIKELY because he had no history of fuge states."

IMO

jotun

[weezer]

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL:

Have complained to everyone here about this including reporting to the "moderator" over & over & over & over again.All to no avail.Checked the only other thread left. Sure enough posts there are about this "news again" while this one is about that, the "trial". AMAZING. It's really not that complicated!!! Just choose the proper topic CLICK and post away.

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa---Make that SHE not he. Then fits Nicole to a T.


SHE didn't have a "diary". Was written for the divorce lawyers.

He placted SHE.

SHE attacked him with fists and feet which some testified to in depos.

SHE promised to change.

SHE always accused him of many affairs.

SHE lied to friends and family.
He didn't separate SHE from anyone.Think everyone wishes he had.

SHE sent the remember when WEDDING AND BIRTH video with the we were so happy letter.

SHE sent the please take me back am so sorry I hurt you love letter.

He broke-up with SHE. Had it planned for months & told others of that plan. Could hardly wait, was looking forward to his promise to SHE for a year being over.He certainly didn't want her back again.

All:
Notice, we haven't seen a real battered woman since 94 on tv.Before then saw alot of photos with their broken noses and jaws, black eyes, & missing teeth. Our resident battered women need to make the gorgeous kind-hearted O.J.the villian.And the beautiful confronter Nicole the "victim" and poster girl for their cause.Instead of the BATTERER that SHE was.SHE not only attacked O.J.numerous times but also slapped his maid and even hit her own mother.

William:
Dr. Lenore Walker was a DEFENCE EXPERT.
She said " O.J. did NOT fit the profile of a batterer who murders.He has good control over his impulses.He appears to control his emotions well.."
Was NOT a stalker...He could control his anger.He had a bad temper,but he YELLED AND LEFT or just LEFT".

Walker admisistered a battery of tests:

O.J.'s cognitive functioning was normal:
O.J.'s social skills remarkable:
O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE in the SUPERIOR RANGE.

"O.J.has made remarkable progress...By the time we finished working together he was able to admit he battered Nicole THAT NIGHT [89]...Understood that even 1 incident characterized him as a batterer.But Simpson is NOT a end-stage batterer as the prosecution charges.At worst he might fit the begining stage.A fuge state is the ONLY possible way O.J.could be guilty. A fuge state or a disassociative state is a distrubed state that the sufferer can not afterwards recall.Has no sence of being at the murder scence,no memory of the crime.But Walker considered the scenario UNLIKELY because he had no history of fuge states."

IMO

jotun

Wrong! :punch:

[William Anthony]

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL:

Have complained to everyone here about this including reporting to the "moderator" over & over & over & over again.All to no avail.Checked the only other thread left. Sure enough posts there are about this "news again" while this one is about that, the "trial". AMAZING. It's really not that complicated!!! Just choose the proper topic CLICK and post away.

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa---Make that SHE not he. Then fits Nicole to a T.


SHE didn't have a "diary". Was written for the divorce lawyers.

He placted SHE.

SHE attacked him with fists and feet which some testified to in depos.

SHE promised to change.

SHE always accused him of many affairs.

SHE lied to friends and family.
He didn't separate SHE from anyone.Think everyone wishes he had.

SHE sent the remember when WEDDING AND BIRTH video with the we were so happy letter.

SHE sent the please take me back am so sorry I hurt you love letter.

He broke-up with SHE. Had it planned for months & told others of that plan. Could hardly wait, was looking forward to his promise to SHE for a year being over.He certainly didn't want her back again.

All:
Notice, we haven't seen a real battered woman since 94 on tv.Before then saw alot of photos with their broken noses and jaws, black eyes, & missing teeth. Our resident battered women need to make the gorgeous kind-hearted O.J.the villian.And the beautiful confronter Nicole the "victim" and poster girl for their cause.Instead of the BATTERER that SHE was.SHE not only attacked O.J.numerous times but also slapped his maid and even hit her own mother.

William:
Dr. Lenore Walker was a DEFENCE EXPERT.
She said " O.J. did NOT fit the profile of a batterer who murders.He has good control over his impulses.He appears to control his emotions well.."
Was NOT a stalker...He could control his anger.He had a bad temper,but he YELLED AND LEFT or just LEFT".

Walker admisistered a battery of tests:

O.J.'s cognitive functioning was normal:
O.J.'s social skills remarkable:
O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE in the SUPERIOR RANGE.

"O.J.has made remarkable progress...By the time we finished working together he was able to admit he battered Nicole THAT NIGHT [89]...Understood that even 1 incident characterized him as a batterer.But Simpson is NOT a end-stage batterer as the prosecution charges.At worst he might fit the begining stage.A fuge state is the ONLY possible way O.J.could be guilty. A fuge state or a disassociative state is a distrubed state that the sufferer can not afterwards recall.Has no sence of being at the murder scence,no memory of the crime.But Walker considered the scenario UNLIKELY because he had no history of fuge states."

IMO

jotun

Thank you. I suspected as much.

[weezer]

Thank you. I suspected as much.

you should read Walker's findings for yourself -- maybe the poster will give you a link.

Walker found orenthal fit the profile of a batterer -- as far as the rest of the post, I doubt very, very seriously that anyone EVER considered orenthal to be of 'superior' intelligence.

[William Anthony]

you should read Walker's findings for yourself -- maybe the poster will give you a link.

Walker found orenthal fit the profile of a batterer -- as far as the rest of the post, I doubt very, very seriously that anyone EVER considered orenthal to be of 'superior' intelligence.

Genius is often mocked, criticized, envied misunderstood, ridiculed and attempted to be banned, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

"O.J.has made remarkable progress...By the time we finished working together he was able to admit he battered Nicole THAT NIGHT [89]...Understood that even 1 incident characterized him as a batterer.But Simpson is NOT a end-stage batterer as the prosecution charges.At worst he might fit the begining stage.A fuge state is the ONLY possible way O.J.could be guilty. A fuge state or a disassociative state is a distrubed state that the sufferer can not afterwards recall.Has no sence of being at the murder scence,no memory of the crime.But Walker considered the scenario UNLIKELY because he had no history of fuge states."

IMO

jotun

Interesting note that you provided above by Dr. Walker regarding her session with OJ. Now based on this note do you care to explain to me why, under oath in the civil trial, OJ Simpson testified that on that same night as noted above that he did not slap, kick, punch, hit, or choke Nicole?

Good luck. And when you can't explain that, then feel free to admit to me that your hero committed perjury in a court of law.

Kate

[jotun]

Interesting note that you provided above by Dr. Walker regarding her session with OJ. Now based on this note do you care to explain to me why, under oath in the civil trial, OJ Simpson testified that on that same night as noted above that he did not slap, kick, punch, hit, or choke Nicole?

Good luck. And when you can't explain that, then feel free to admit to me that your hero committed perjury in a court of law.

Kate

OFF-TOPIC!!!

Won't need any LUCK. Is quite SIMPLE to anyone without an agenda. A person does NOT have to slap, kick, punch, hit or choke, to batter someone. O.J.testified that he was responsible for ALL [bruises on her arms] Nicole's injuries even the little knot on her forhead that she got falling outside in the mud, which was on her pants. Because he threw her out. O.J. testified that he rassled her out of the bedroom. Her only minor injuries were consistent with that.
So, NO will NOT admit my HERO commited purjury because I don't believe he did. O.J. has NEVER been charged with perjury.Not that some didn't try.The state attorney general said he read ALL of O.J.'s testimony and found NO LIES.

ALL---Could we get this thread back ON-TOPIC. Am not going to argue this 14 year old case.Especially on the wrong thread. In case anyone forgot O.J. was AQUITTED OCT 3 95.

Hopefully:
O.J.WILL BE AQUITTED AGAIN IN 08.
This is the only trial I'm interested in at the present time.

IMO

jotun

[tv]

OFF-TOPIC!!!

Won't need any LUCK. Is quite SIMPLE to anyone without an agenda. A person does NOT have to slap, kick, punch, hit or choke, to batter someone. O.J.testified that he was responsible for ALL [bruises on her arms] Nicole's injuries even the little knot on her forhead that she got falling outside in the mud, which was on her pants. Because he threw her out. O.J. testified that he rassled her out of the bedroom. Her only minor injuries were consistent with that.
So, NO will NOT admit my HERO commited purjury because I don't believe he did. O.J. has NEVER been charged with perjury.Not that some didn't try.The state attorney general said he read ALL of O.J.'s testimony and found NO LIES.

ALL---Could we get this thread back ON-TOPIC. Am not going to argue this 14 year old case.Especially on the wrong thread. In case anyone forgot O.J. was AQUITTED OCT 3 95.

Hopefully:
O.J.WILL BE AQUITTED AGAIN IN 08.
This is the only trial I'm interested in at the present time.

IMO

jotunYou need to stop screaming OFF-TOPIC unless you're going to stay on on-topic yourself. Example: Post #1151 above. If you're interested in OJ Simpson's current legal troubles then post something of substance regarding it instead of trying to herd everyone else back on track in such an obnoxious manner. I can assure you no one is impressed.

[Kate Sachel]

OFF-TOPIC!!!

Won't need any LUCK. Is quite SIMPLE to anyone without an agenda. A person does NOT have to slap, kick, punch, hit or choke, to batter someone. O.J.testified that he was responsible for ALL [bruises on her arms] Nicole's injuries even the little knot on her forhead that she got falling outside in the mud, which was on her pants. Because he threw her out. O.J. testified that he rassled her out of the bedroom. Her only minor injuries were consistent with that.
So, NO will NOT admit my HERO commited purjury because I don't believe he did. O.J. has NEVER been charged with perjury.Not that some didn't try.The state attorney general said he read ALL of O.J.'s testimony and found NO LIES.

ALL---Could we get this thread back ON-TOPIC. Am not going to argue this 14 year old case.Especially on the wrong thread. In case anyone forgot O.J. was AQUITTED OCT 3 95.

Hopefully:
O.J.WILL BE AQUITTED AGAIN IN 08.
This is the only trial I'm interested in at the present time.

IMO

jotun

I figured this would be your response as it is the typical response from individuals who idolize a batterer and condemn a victim.

Black eyes, cut lips, and strangulation marks on a neck are not minor injuries that occur when one is "rassling" another. Any medical personel would advise you of such.

Please provide a link or other solid proof for your assertion that the state attorney general said he read all of OJ's testimony and found no lies.

Kate

[pearyb]

I doubt few can exactly state the relationship between these two individuals. One of which is dead. For all we know she spit in his face, or drew first blood in some other fashion.

[tv]

I doubt few can exactly state the relationship between these two individuals. One of which is dead. For all we know she spit in his face, or drew first blood in some other fashion.One of these individuals was much larger and stronger than the other and never seemed to have any injuries during their physcial altercations. Nicole is dead but she left a diary describing some of these incidents and also told close friends. Her ex-husband and killer, on the other hand, has never admitted to hitting her. I guess it's okay if he hit her as long as she drew "first blood". The excuses for OJ Simpson never ends.

[Heyes]

One of these individuals was much larger and stronger than the other and never seemed to have any injuries during their physcial altercations. Nicole is dead but she left a diary describing some of these incidents and also told close friends. Her ex-husband and killer, on the other hand, has never admitted to hitting her. I guess it's okay if he hit her as long as she drew "first blood". The excuses for OJ Simpson never ends.


IMO


Hi tv!
Just got all caught up. First I have to say that if the words,
O.J.'s INTELLIGENCE was in the SUPERIOR RANGE." were actually said, then I suggest perhaps it would be a good idea to put Lenore Walker through a few tests. That's one wacky statement right there. I don't think I've heard anyone mention that they thought the killers intelligence was anywhere near superior.
To the poster that thinks it's OK to batter Nicole because she may have "spit" on him "drawing first blood" maybe a test or two for this person is in order as well? I'm just sayin....... :rolleyes:
imo

[zurichsl]

i think what really happened is hmmm so the lady hes wife and the guy was about to go back to the party or head to the party than they were talking drinking some whiskey or what ever fancy drink than .
let`s go the room in the dark ... where some one all ready been doing something even hide or even robery , or something to looks like a robery .
maybe a secret lover or just a behavier , than she either went to room to do soemthing what matched with the previous options or if the last one to turn off the ligth or something than a noise she went in than knife - knife - knife - and again the gentlemen come`s in when the attacker turns into something like to give a chance to win to the person so anyway he`s trying to help her than a cut again agian agian . boum oj is about to freek out why she isn`t there yet during the time to see what`s going on but it`s all rady too late the person left throo the back window and oj stayed in a very bloody seen ...
and the person for purpes took those items what he was going for .
i `m from eu so it wont count anything on me but that`s how i feel about the case but for sure he has nothing to do with it i think some is just playing with that ... with our nervus.

[Heyes]

i think what really happened is hmmm so the lady hes wife and the guy was about to go back to the party or head to the party than they were talking drinking some whiskey or what ever fancy drink than .
let`s go the room in the dark ... where some one all ready been doing something even hide or even robery , or something to looks like a robery .
maybe a secret lover or just a behavier , than she either went to room to do soemthing what matched with the previous options or if the last one to turn off the ligth or something than a noise she went in than knife - knife - knife - and again the gentlemen come`s in when the attacker turns into something like to give a chance to win to the person so anyway he`s trying to help her than a cut again agian agian . boum oj is about to freek out why she isn`t there yet during the time to see what`s going on but it`s all rady too late the person left throo the back window and oj stayed in a very bloody seen ...
and the person for purpes took those items what he was going for .
i `m from eu so it wont count anything on me but that`s how i feel about the case but for sure he has nothing to do with it i think some is just playing with that ... with our nervus.

Welcome, nice to meet ya!
Did you get an opportunity to follow either the criminal or civil trial?

[zurichsl]

Welcome, nice to meet ya!
Did you get an opportunity to follow either the criminal or civil trial?
i`m sorry in my family we don`t get to follow other people trial about cases like this specialy .... in a murder ... follow others tought no way you kidding me . i mean look every one knows criminal or even worst minds like stilling other people personality or just to play who`s rich or morelike after an unfair life some one is start killing some ones .
and set it as as is like now ... no thank you i don`t watch tv like this exemple here is my roomate perfect wha the does after he was sleeping in the car had no where to go so watch he worked for a guy who had a brand new machine and all that now he stoled everything i might didn`t tell i grew up in the city and the country for mistake not to be like one of the projects i you know what i mean i `don`t mean to see them but sometimes where they getting connected to you a little bit too much type it in GONNA BE .... UNTIL HE TURNS TO BE ... so first he was offering after one of themachine is broken to fix it i pay for fix than he will share the sale price than because i said no he goes like uhm well acting like it`s mine even can copy my parents and talk to me like them i just acting but sometimes i can actually feel there is more out side how would you act .... become a serial killer or a terrorist or start playing with someone until they know what is actually going on ?
imagen that than follow the trials .... :beer:
these peoples are also responsible for wars and suiced killings and others
....... here is an oportunity for you let`s see what can do with it .
also nacis made asame mistake i think they tought the juish people does that
but they were just acting as the bad agains them and whe n hitler faced with them bouauhhh big supriesed why most of them killed them selfs after that
to held to seeds over ....
zurichsl

[zurichsl]

so if you read my quote than you will know

[jotun]

martin,
Yes, O.J.said 'Don't let nobody out of here',or a variation, at least 3 times.

IFFFF this IS kidnapping wouldn't that be 9 counts not just 2 ??? Including O.J. himself.Except maybe the guy he said it to, the guy by the door.Tho, don't believe anyone wanted to or was trying to leave.

But the gunmen [Alexander,who is barking orders & McClinton who is acting like a cop] and the real thief [Cashmore,who was asked to return everything not his, by O.J. and volunteered to do so,but didn't.Took it home instead] were not charged with kidnapping or ARMED robbery. Even tho they did ROB as O.J. told them not to take any of that, because it was NOT HIS. Cashmore testified to this and it is reportedly on the tape.Also reportedly on the tape, when the 'victims' complain that they have some of their things, O.J. says he'll get it back to them.[O.J. also says this to Fromong on the phone, played on 'Entertainment Tonight' & 'Inside Edition' days after.]

All of them are to get probation for this alleged robbery [tho they all testified they went to retrive O.J.'s stolen property except Cashmore who was going to move boxes]
With all charges DROPPED after
O.J.'s CONVICTION.

They just might get a surprise.
O.J. WILL BE AQUITTED and these 3 will end up in prison. HOPE!!!

IMO

jotun




ON-TOPIC




O.J.TRIAL DELAYED

All:

March 7---Oh happy day!!! O.J.'s trial has been delayed until September 8.
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=7980822

Most everyone wanted the delay except the judge and Yale.The DA's also gave the defence lawyers 4 new expert witnesses the night before this hearing,knowing that alone would cause a delay,which Stewart and Ehrlich's lawyers had asked for last week but the judge denied.

"Reason"for continuance:
Seems after 6 months the DA's had NOT had the tapes analized.
Or my guess,they have and the 8 words my spouse and I heard O.J. say on the Ricco tape in Sept and sent to Yale
then. ARE on it. Should bring an aquittal. Maybe one of the reasons Yale oozes confidence.

DA's tried to give Ehrlich's lawyer just their transcripts of Ricco's tape.Yale had comlpained at the prelim that their transcripts were inaccurate.Always believed,Yale has a copy and had it analized.

Did the DA's think they could get away with this? Are they hiding the ball,postponing the inevitable,or SAVING FACE???

Alot could happen in 6 months-more deals made-charges dropped etc.

IMO

jotun

[LI_Mom]

Did the DA's think they could get away with this? Are they hiding the ball,postponing the inevitable,or SAVING FACE???

Alot could happen in 6 months-more deals made-charges dropped etc.

IMO

jotun

Six months is a long time....

Hopefully in 6 months time the co-defendants will all turn on Simpson & fully cooperate with the prosecution against him.

Better yet, maybe the creep will drop dead of a heart attack on some golf course & save the public some money.

[jotun]

Six months is a long time....

Hopefully in 6 months time the co-defendants will all turn on Simpson & fully cooperate with the prosecution against him.




O.J.CHARGES DROPPED ???

All:

Am HOPING that the remaining 2 defendants DO make plea-deals.

Then Yale can work on getting O.J.'s charges DISMISSED.

My favorite "victim" Beardsly still wants that.He always has.He never wanted O.J.charged with anything because he says O.J. didn't do anything, only gave him a lecture.He said in Sept that he and O.J.had resolved the issue that night when O.J.called from the suv and the next day.Said O.J.was very upset about the guns, didn't know anyone had guns.

A concerned Beardsly has appeared on tv a few times before & after O.J.'s bail hearing, which he attended.He said he was going to file charges against Ricco for taping him and O.J.,without their knowledge,from Ca where it's illegal.

Beardsly has recently filed a lawsuit against Ricco saying he is the guy who SET-UP both O.J. & Beardsly for profit .Fromong is also very upset that Ricco is free and making money on all this.
IMO

jotun

[tv]

O.J.CHARGES DROPPED ???

All:

Am HOPING that the remaining 2 defendants DO make plea-deals.

Then Yale can work on getting O.J.'s charges DISMISSED.

My favorite "victim" Beardsly still wants that.He always has.He never wanted O.J.charged with anything because he says O.J. didn't do anything, only gave him a lecture.He said in Sept that he and O.J.had resolved the issue that night when O.J.called from the suv and the next day.Said O.J.was very upset about the guns, didn't know anyone had guns.

A concerned Beardsly has appeared on tv a few times before & after O.J.'s bail hearing, which he attended.He said he was going to file charges against Ricco for taping him and O.J.,without their knowledge,from Ca where it's illegal.

Beardsly has recently filed a lawsuit against Ricco saying he is the guy who SET-UP both O.J. & Beardsly for profit .Fromong is also very upset that Ricco is free and making money on all this.
IMO

jotunThey're all a bunch of bottom-feeders just like Simpson. If Beardsley is so concerned about OJS getting in trouble then why did he call 911?

[LI_Mom]

They're all a bunch of bottom-feeders just like Simpson. If Beardsley is so concerned about OJS getting in trouble then why did he call 911?

Beardsley is a virtual paragon of virtue :rolleyes: ..... on the same level as the murderous OJ. They're two peas in a pod & I'm sure Beardsley's only interest is in protecting his OWN butt.

http://oj-parade.blogspot.com/2007/09/ojs-delusional-accuser.html

[jotun]

O.J.CHARGES DROPPED ???

All:

Am HOPING that the remaining 2 defendants DO make plea-deals.

Then Yale can work on getting O.J.'s charges DISMISSED.

My favorite "victim" Beardsley still wants that.He always has.He never wanted O.J.charged with anything because he says O.J. didn't do anything, only gave him a lecture.He said in Sept that he and O.J.had resolved the issue that night when O.J.called from the suv and the next day.Said O.J.was very upset about the guns, didn't know anyone had guns.

A concerned Beardsley has appeared on tv a few times before & after O.J.'s bail hearing, which he attended.He said he was going to file charges against Ricco for taping him and O.J.,without their knowledge,from Ca where it's illegal.

Beardsley has recently filed a lawsuit against Ricco saying he is the guy who SET-UP both O.J. & Beardsley for profit .Fromong is also very upset that Ricco is free and making money on all this.

IMO

jotun



tvdinner:

To answer your question:

Beardsley said he called 911 because Ricco provoked him by LYING about O.J..Ricco said O.J.told him that if he Beardsley talked to the 'National Enquirer'that he O.J. would sue him. Beardsley testified to this at the prelim.He called he said "because everyone knows I have a temper and that made me mad." Said he will never call 911 again for any reason.

li_mom:

Think some people are being way too hard on Beardsley including Yale. Beardsley may be a little loony but seems the most sane of the lot, especially when compared to the D.A.'s. It's certainly crazy to think anyone would believe O.J. could "rob" his own sh!t.Even most of the media think that is ridiculous.

All:

These 'victims' & 'cohorts' are a colorful bunch.

A body language expert on ctv, watching the prelim, said they are like a road company of 'Guys & Dolls' even have the names.That Alexander, McClinton, and Fromong are LYING. But in reality ALL are out to IMPRESS the alpa-male---O.J.


We will see IFFFFF this ever goes to trial.
Have always believed the prelim WAS the trial.
That it will NOT go to a verdict.
But IFFFFF it does that verdict will be "NOT GUILTY".


ANNOUNCEMENT ?!?!?!


IMO

jotun

[weezer]

They're all a bunch of bottom-feeders just like Simpson. If Beardsley is so concerned about OJS getting in trouble then why did he call 911?

some of these guys testified on behalf of orenthal and/or helped him hide his assets -- now they are running like little girls because they know what orenthal is capable of. It's going to be hard to disavow/ignore what is said on the tapes. imo

[Heyes]

some of these guys testified on behalf of orenthal and/or helped him hide his assets -- now they are running like little girls because they know what orenthal is capable of. It's going to be hard to disavow/ignore what is said on the tapes. imo

I love the defense.... "the killer" was rather upset that a couple of his goons brought guns~
Did anyone notice "the killer" mention during the heist *Hey put those things away?* Nope!
What we did hear is "the killer" tell them *don't let anyone leave the room* and *Get their phones*. Yeah real nice guy that oranthal!
imo

[tv]

tvdinner:

To answer your question:

Beardsley said he called 911 because Ricco provoked him by LYING about O.J..Ricco said O.J.told him that if he Beardsley talked to the 'National Enquirer'that he O.J. would sue him. Beardsley testified to this at the prelim.He called he said "because everyone knows I have a temper and that made me mad." Said he will never call 911 again for any reason.

li_mom:

Think some people are being way too hard on Beardsley including Yale. Beardsley may be a little loony but seems the most sane of the lot, especially when compared to the D.A.'s. It's certainly crazy to think anyone would believe O.J. could "rob" his own sh!t.Even most of the media think that is ridiculous.

All:

These 'victims' & 'cohorts' are a colorful bunch.

A body language expert on ctv, watching the prelim, said they are like a road company of 'Guys & Dolls' even have the names.That Alexander, McClinton, and Fromong are LYING. But in reality ALL are out to IMPRESS the alpa-male---O.J.


We will see IFFFFF this ever goes to trial.
Have always believed the prelim WAS the trial.
That it will NOT go to a verdict.
But IFFFFF it does that verdict will be "NOT GUILTY".


ANNOUNCEMENT ?!?!?!


IMO

jotunWe're supposed to believe Beardsley's story just because he says so? I'm not sure any of them would know the truth from a lie if it slapped them in the face. I'm going to wait and see how it all plays out.

Simpson is the "alpha-male" all right. I bet he was feeling real alpha when he over-powered two people and murdered them and when he stormed into the hotel room screaming.

I do think it was mighty nice of him to go to such lengths to get Fred Goldman's property back from those lowlifes. What a guy.

[tv]

I love the defense.... "the killer" was rather upset that a couple of his goons brought guns~
Did anyone notice "the killer" mention during the heist *Hey put those things away?* Nope!
What we did hear is "the killer" tell them *don't let anyone leave the room* and *Get their phones*. Yeah real nice guy that oranthal!
imoDeadly sharp knives don't seem to bother him but those guns are off-limits. Sure. I think he knew the gun or guns were going to be present and that he wanted it that way. Now he's denying he knew anything about them because he's trying to save his own hide. AS USUAL.

[tv]

some of these guys testified on behalf of orenthal and/or helped him hide his assets -- now they are running like little girls because they know what orenthal is capable of. It's going to be hard to disavow/ignore what is said on the tapes. imoThank goodness for the tapes. Whether Riccio did it for money or whatever at least there's a record of Simpson losing his cool. Think what kind of story he'd make up if there wasn't a tape of it.

[Heyes]

Hi.

There is no doubt. Mr Simpson has INTIMATE knowledge of the crime. Was in LA when the trial started. There were bleachers filled with camera crews etc and satellite dishes across from the courthouse. it was incredible. He got off. I don't know why.

Cheers:patriot:
Hi, nice to meet ya!
He got off because of the times in Los Angeles, ( The Rodney King incident).
He got off because the jury wanted to "even the score". In other words he lucked out.
I was there as well and it was incredible. There were threats from locals that if he was voted Guilty the riots would start back up. I'm sure the jurors felt the heat. I know many of us did at the time. Now it's totally different. Tons of people that were saying not guilty and defending the idiot are singing a different tune now. His shacking up with another white woman was one of the reasons I heard from others that made his popularity go way down. The lack of being a part of the community that supported him was another reason. I believe they felt used in a way. It all was a mess. One big unbelievable mess.
In the end everyone was disappointed in one way or another.

IMO

[Heyes]

Hi. There are 2 dead people and an extremely reasonable beyond the proof of doubt suspect. His bizarre behaviour a few months ago in LV, to my mind, indicates a man with definite social problems. I was really annoyed seeing him parading around golf courses etc but I think his latest wacko behaviour could finally start to dry up the invitations. Let's hope so. I'm certain where he should be and it's not out in society.

Cheers
I agree.
The only beauty in all of this is that "The Killer" is in the trouble he's in now because of his behavior back then and one very determined father named Fred Goldman. If "The Killer" hadn't of been paranoid about Mr. Goldman receiving the property owed to him in the civil suit, "the killer" wouldn't have had to hide it and now he wouldn't be trying to get it back by intimidation and a handful of goons with guns. So yeah it all catches up in the long run
imo

[Heyes]

Hi. The Goldman's must be just so sick over this loser and his continued antics. Do you know where his and Nicole's children are now? Who is looking after them and are they all right?

Cheers
All I've heard is the youngest daughter is in college I think in New York. Probably nice to live away from daddy. The youngest boy I think is still in high school. I have no idea how miserable his life must be living with that man and some wacked out drunk chick that tends to fall down all the time. Hopefully he has some good friends and tends to stay at their house most of the time. The oldest children.... let's see, last I heard the daughter still lives off daddy and I have no idea what the son is up to. Probably trying to live his life the best he can considering the baggage his father has put on him.
imo

[Therese]

Well, actually, if I remember correctly, right after OJ was arrested, there were several reports on the fact that he could barely read, couldn't spell even on a 3rd grade level, and he couldn't write. Apparently, there was a note or a letter that he wrote (I don't remember if it was to anyone, or if it was old, but they had the original with them), and it was generally agreed that OJ's intelligence was very low. I also remember hearing his IQ test confirmed that this was the case. OJ has never struck me as being in any way, shape, or form on the intelligent side. As a matter of fact, the only reason he was in college was because he was on a football scholarship. And that was back in the days when academics vs. athletics was not a priority.

TT

[Therese]

Hi.

There is no doubt. Mr Simpson has INTIMATE knowledge of the crime. Was in LA when the trial started. There were bleachers filled with camera crews etc and satellite dishes across from the courthouse. it was incredible. He got off. I don't know why.

Cheers:patriot:
He got off because the majority of the jurors were black.

[William Anthony]

He got off because the majority of the jurors were black.

Yes, the criminal jury was intelligent enough to know that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

[weezer]

Yes, the criminal jury was intelligent enough to know that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

the criminal jury couldn't see the evidence through the color of the defendant's skin and they lacked the intelligence to decide the proof in this case -- as proven by their interviews and/or books after the verdict. imo

[Jayme K]

Yes, the criminal jury was intelligent enough to know that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

Hmm. How'd they know that the evidence was insufficient when they didn't understand half the evidence?

But I'm sure they're willing to accept any credit you'd care to throw their way.

[William Anthony]

Hmm. How'd they know that the evidence was insufficient when they didn't understand half the evidence?

But I'm sure they're willing to accept any credit you'd care to throw their way.

Are you saying that the prosecution only presented half the evidence in an understandable manner?

[William Anthony]

Hi. Suffice it to say that I believe OJ is guilty of many heinous crimes. The thing that REALLY riles me is that he has never been made to do any time for what he has done.

Yes, in our system of justice an accused must be found guilty before he is sentenced. He had a trial and was found not guilty.

[Jayme K]

Are you saying that the prosecution only presented half the evidence in an understandable manner?

Nope, I'm definitely saying that they can't say evidence was insufficient when they didn't understand half of it.

And now that I think about it more, I'm definitely saying that they were idiots.

[weezer]

Nope, I'm definitely saying that they can't say evidence was insufficient when they didn't understand half of it.

And now that I think about it more, I'm definitely saying that they were idiots.

:beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

Nope, I'm definitely saying that they can't say evidence was insufficient when they didn't understand half of it.

And now that I think about it more, I'm definitely saying that they were idiots.

I understand now, I think. Are you saying that only those who think the evidence was sufficient to convict him are not idiots?

[Jayme K]

I understand now, I think. Are you saying that only those who think the evidence was sufficient to convict him are not idiots?

Nope, I don't think you get it at all but that's not a real shocker to me.

You want to think he's guilty or not based on evidence you've made some effort to understand then more power to you. It's only an idiot though that has a man's life in his hands and willy nilly yells out a verdict after not understanding evidence, admitting that the evidence wasn't understood and not making any effort to understand it.

Yep, they were definitely idiots.

[weezer]

I understand now, I think. Are you saying that only those who think the evidence was sufficient to convict him are not idiots?

that pretty much sums it up -- :rolleyes:

[martin II]

All I've heard is the youngest daughter is in college I think in New York. Probably nice to live away from daddy. The youngest boy I think is still in high school. I have no idea how miserable his life must be living with that man and some wacked out drunk chick that tends to fall down all the time. Hopefully he has some good friends and tends to stay at their house most of the time. The oldest children.... let's see, last I heard the daughter still lives off daddy and I have no idea what the son is up to. Probably trying to live his life the best he can considering the baggage his father has put on him.
imo

Oj daughter in college in the northeast and the son is in collage in Florida.Daughter comes home during summer and holidays and seems to be well adjusted as does his son. i have seen pictures of them as a group and everyons seems to be smiling and at ease.
Arnell works as a fashion consultant for various designer lines. Sean John is one and is knows in the los angeles and new york fashion industry.
not sure what Jason is doing but he lives in Miami. He is a chef by occupation,
so possibly working in a South Beach resturant.
IMO

That is the last i heard.
martin II

[martin II]

He got off because the majority of the jurors were black.

Consider the weakness of the prosecutions case and the testimony of some of their witnesses, it is my opinion that a Native American, Mexican,
Chinese, Brizilain or Somatrian jury would have rendered the same verdict
as the 'Majority black jury" you speak of rendered.imo
martin II

[martin II]

that pretty much sums it up -- :rolleyes:

i dissagree with that conclusion. If your comment is meant as a conclusion.
:cool:
martinii

[martin II]

We're supposed to believe Beardsley's story just because he says so? I'm not sure any of them would know the truth from a lie if it slapped them in the face. I'm going to wait and see how it all plays out.

Simpson is the "alpha-male" all right. I bet he was feeling real alpha when he over-powered two people and murdered them and when he stormed into the hotel room screaming.

I do think it was mighty nice of him to go to such lengths to get Fred Goldman's property back from those lowlifes. What a guy.

Are you sure the ca judge had awarded Fred the property in the hotel room when the caper took place?
martin II

[tv]

Are you sure the ca judge had awarded Fred the property in the hotel room when the caper took place?
martin IINo, I just figured it was the reason OJ Simpson was hiding the stuff from Mr. Goldman.

[William Anthony]

No, I just figured it was the reason OJ Simpson was hiding the stuff from Mr. Goldman.

I do not think that a person can be charged with robbery for taking back his own property.

[tv]

I do not think that a person can be charged with robbery for taking back his own property.It is unlawful to hold someone against their will and brandish a firearm even if the property does belong to you. It's called vigilante justice and it's illegal.

[William Anthony]

It is unlawful to hold someone against their will and brandish a firearm even if the property does belong to you. It's called vigilante justice and it's illegal.

I think you may want to rethink your post. We have had the discussion on court cases about the right of a property owner to reclaim his property. Without patting myself on the back, I was the first one to question whether or not the robbery and kidnapping charges would stick. The defense filed a motion and I do not know the outcome seeking the dismissal of those charges. I doubt that they will be dismissed at this point simply because Simpson is who he is.

[martin II]

It is unlawful to hold someone against their will and brandish a firearm even if the property does belong to you. It's called vigilante justice and it's illegal.

I have not read any witness at the hearing testify that oj simpson brandished a gun or that any "victim" asked to leave the room.
martin II

[martin II]

No, I just figured it was the reason OJ Simpson was hiding the stuff from Mr. Goldman.

tv

I do not believe it is accurate to say Oj was hiding items from Fred.

When the incident at the hotel came to light, Fred went to the CA judge and asked that all the items be given to him then.The judge ruled that any item fred thought he should be awarded, fred would have to bring that/those
items to court and a decision would be made on each item.It may be that fred was not able do this as vegas le had to keep the "evidence' for the trial.

An example of the judges requirements can be seen when he required fred to bring that watch he wanted to court.The watch turned out not be be what fred had claimed it was and the judge ordered the watch returned to oj.

So the idea that fred was given ownership of the items in question because they belonged to him or that oj was hiding items that belonged to fred is not accurate imo
MARTIN II

[martin II]

No, I just figured it was the reason OJ Simpson was hiding the stuff from Mr. Goldman.

On the tape, one of the people selling the goods in the hotel is heard telling oj, "mike took it " the goods.As in i did not take them. don't blame me. Later in a interview i think it was Beadsley or Fromong that said Mike took the goods from ojs trophy room.

It is obvious that when the guy that brought oj to the hotel room, oj did not know who had the items and that he was surprised that it was these two "friends" that were trying to sell the items.

So how is it that oj was hiding items when he did not know who had them?
martin II

[tv]

On the tape, one of the people selling the goods in the hotel is heard telling oj, "mike took it " the goods.As in i did not take them. don't blame me. Later in a interview i think it was Beadsley or Fromong that said Mike took the goods from ojs trophy room.

It is obvious that when the guy that brought oj to the hotel room, oj did not know who had the items and that he was surprised that it was these two "friends" that were trying to sell the items.

So how is it that oj was hiding items when he did not know who had them?
martin IIWho knows what is true and what's not? We'll have to wait for the trial and see what all the evidence is. What isn't in dispute is that Mike Gilbert did hide items from Fred Goldman for Simpson such as the Heisman Trophy. It's my opinion that some of those items may have ended up being sold instead of being returned to Simpson.

[tv]

I have not read any witness at the hearing testify that oj simpson brandished a gun or that any "victim" asked to leave the room.
martin IIOJ Simpson made it clear that no one was leaving the room. I don't recall the exact words he used but it would be easy to research. Whether Simpson had a gun or not doesn't protect him from being charged.

[martin II]

Who knows what is true and what's not? We'll have to wait for the trial and see what all the evidence is. What isn't in dispute is that Mike Gilbert did hide items from Fred Goldman for Simpson such as the Heisman Trophy. It's my opinion that some of those items may have ended up being sold instead of being returned to Simpson.

The items that Beasdley & Fromong say Mike stole were in the hotel room.
None of the item taken by mike belonged to fred since the judge had not awarded any to him so how could something be hidden from fred that did not belong to him.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson made it clear that no one was leaving the room. I don't recall the exact words he used but it would be easy to research. Whether Simpson had a gun or not doesn't protect him from being charged.

There is a part of the nevada law that requires the 'KIDNAPPER' to move the victim to another roon in order for kidnapping to take place. i posted this before and will look to see if i still have it.
martin II

[martin II]

OJ Simpson made it clear that no one was leaving the room. I don't recall the exact words he used but it would be easy to research. Whether Simpson had a gun or not doesn't protect him from being charged.

did either victim ask to leave the room and was his request denied by oj?

[martin II]

Who knows what is true and what's not? We'll have to wait for the trial and see what all the evidence is. What isn't in dispute is that Mike Gilbert did hide items from Fred Goldman for Simpson such as the Heisman Trophy. It's my opinion that some of those items may have ended up being sold instead of being returned to Simpson.



Here is what happened to the Heisman trophy.
February 17, 1999
Web posted at: 5:13 a.m. EST (1013 GMT

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Some of O.J. Simpson's most prized possessions hit the auction block Tuesday evening -- including his Heisman Trophy, which sold for $230,000.

Simpson's property was seized after a civil trial found him liable for the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.

Court-appointed receivers put 72 lots of property up for sale to help satisfy the $33 million judgment against Simpson. The auction house Butterfield and Butterfield handled the auction in Los Angeles and via the Internet.

Michael Myers, the court-appointed receiver charged with collecting the money owed to the Brown and Goldman families, told reporters after the event: "The amount collected today won't even make a scratch in the amount that is owed."

After Butterfield and Butterfield takes its commissions, the families will receive around $382,000 of the total $430,000 raised from the auction.

Telephone bidder gets the Heisman

[martin II]

OJ Simpson made it clear that no one was leaving the room. I don't recall the exact words he used but it would be easy to research. Whether Simpson had a gun or not doesn't protect him from being charged.



tv

here is a small explination i will look for a more detailed one.

tv

Did oj move the 'VICTIMS' from the roon or to another area to kidnap them.


Kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This is often done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. A majority of jurisdictions in the United States retain the "asportation" element for kidnapping, where the victim must be confined in a bounded area against their will and moved. Any amount of movement will suffice for the requirement, even if it is moving the abductee to a house next door.



http://www.nevadacriminallawcenter.com/Kidnapping.php

[martin II]

tv
did oj do anything to meet the law of asportation??


O.J. Simpson and the Law of Asportation
The Clark County, Nevada State's Attorney added a kidnapping count to the O.J. Simpson indictment. Kidnapping carries a potential life sentence and is a much more serious crime than any of the other charges against Simpson.

Karen and I believe that the State is loading up against Simpson to put extra pressure on him to settle.

What is the likelihood of convicting Simpson on a kidnapping charge? Not much because of the legal definition of kidnapping and the law of asportation.

The Nevada kidnapping statute is Nev. Rev. Stat.



Ann. 200.310 and reads that:

1. A person who willfully

seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,

abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a

person by any means whatsoever with the intent

to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the

person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or

robbery upon or from the person, or for the

purpose of killing the person or inflicting

substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact

from relatives, friends, or any other person any

money or valuable thing for the return or

disposition of the kidnaped person, and

a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries

away or detains any minor with the intent to

keep, imprison, or confine him from his

parents, guardians, or any other person having

lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or

perpetrate upon the person of the minor any

unlawful act is guilty of kidnaping in the first

degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without

authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes,

carries away or kidnaps another person with the

intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned

within the state, or for the purpose of

conveying the person out of the state without

authority of law, or in any manner held to

service or detained against his will, is guilty

of kidnaping in the second degree which is a

category B felony.





Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.



http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36735&Itemid=448

[tv]

tv
did oj do anything to meet the law of asportation??


O.J. Simpson and the Law of Asportation
The Clark County, Nevada State's Attorney added a kidnapping count to the O.J. Simpson indictment. Kidnapping carries a potential life sentence and is a much more serious crime than any of the other charges against Simpson.

Karen and I believe that the State is loading up against Simpson to put extra pressure on him to settle.

What is the likelihood of convicting Simpson on a kidnapping charge? Not much because of the legal definition of kidnapping and the law of asportation.

The Nevada kidnapping statute is Nev. Rev. Stat.



Ann. 200.310 and reads that:

1. A person who willfully

seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,

abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a

person by any means whatsoever with the intent

to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the

person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or

robbery upon or from the person, or for the

purpose of killing the person or inflicting

substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact

from relatives, friends, or any other person any

money or valuable thing for the return or

disposition of the kidnaped person, and

a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries

away or detains any minor with the intent to

keep, imprison, or confine him from his

parents, guardians, or any other person having

lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or

perpetrate upon the person of the minor any

unlawful act is guilty of kidnaping in the first

degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without

authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes,

carries away or kidnaps another person with the

intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned

within the state, or for the purpose of

conveying the person out of the state without

authority of law, or in any manner held to

service or detained against his will, is guilty

of kidnaping in the second degree which is a

category B felony.





Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.



http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36735&Itemid=448martin, I'd like to see where it's actually stated in the written law that the person must be moved. What I see here doesn't say that but it does describe the situation in that hotel room.

[martin II]

martin, I'd like to see where it's actually stated in the written law that the person must be moved. What I see here doesn't say that but it does describe the situation in that hotel room.

Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.

[martin II]

tv
I posted two sources explaining the law of asportation applies in NEVADA CRIMINAL LAW.That being the case, I am not sure Kidnapping charge should be sustained since no victim was moved.







Section 1201. Kidnapping
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys,
kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or
otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent
thereof, when -
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or
foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when
transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when
the transportation began;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special
aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section
46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally
protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined
in section 1116(b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described
in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person
is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the
performance of official duties,



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/p

[martin II]

martin, I'd like to see where it's actually stated in the written law that the person must be moved. What I see here doesn't say that but it does describe the situation in that hotel room.

If the law of asportation does apply in Navada as stated by the legal source in my post, then the victim must be moved from the original spot.

[William Anthony]

martin, I'd like to see where it's actually stated in the written law that the person must be moved. What I see here doesn't say that but it does describe the situation in that hotel room.

What is says is for the intent to rob the person. The element of intent to rob will be hard to prove, since Simpson claims he was taking back his property. If there is no robbery, then there is no kidnapping.

[tv]

tv
I posted two sources explaining the law of asportation applies in NEVADA CRIMINAL LAW.That being the case, I am not sure Kidnapping charge should be sustained since no victim was moved.







Section 1201. Kidnapping
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys,
kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or
otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent
thereof, when -
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or
foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when
transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when
the transportation began;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special
aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section
46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally
protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined
in section 1116(b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described
in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person
is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the
performance of official duties,



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/pI'm not interpreting it the same way you are but I'm sure if it applies in this case Simpson's lawyers will be able to present that in court.

[William Anthony]

"I'm not interpreting it the same way you are but I'm sure if it applies in this case Simpson's lawyers will be able to present that in court.

Your post of the law.

Ann. 200.310 and reads that:

1. A person who willfully

seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,

abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a

person by any means whatsoever with the intent

to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the

person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or

robbery upon or from the person,

no intent to rob, no kidnapping, imho.

[tv]

"

Your post of the law.

Ann. 200.310 and reads that:

1. A person who willfully

seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,

abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a

person by any means whatsoever with the intent

to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the

person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or

robbery upon or from the person,

no intent to rob, no kidnapping, imho.Your point?

[William Anthony]

Your point?

No intent to rob, no kidnapping. The charges might be dismissed and rightly so, imho.

[tv]

No intent to rob, no kidnapping. The charges might be dismissed and rightly so, imho.Maybe so, maybe not. We'll know sometime in September.

[William Anthony]

Maybe so, maybe not. We'll know sometime in September.

As I have previously stated, the charges will probably not be dropped-not because of the legality of the charges but because of what some call the court of public opinion and who Simpson is perceived to be by certain members of that court.

[tv]

As I have previously stated, the charges will probably not be dropped-not because of the legality of the charges but because of what some call the court of public opinion and who Simpson is perceived to be by certain members of that court.
It's going to take a lot of different people in different positions along the way to convict Simpson on charges that were brought illegally. It sounds to me like another huge ring of conspiracy is being formed and it should be stopped immediately before it grows any larger.

[William Anthony]

It's going to take a lot of different people in different positions along the way to convict Simpson on charges that were brought illegally. It sounds to me like another huge ring of conspiracy is being formed and it should be stopped immediately before it grows any larger.

Contrary to public opinion, everything is not a conspiracy. It may simply be an over zealous prosecution. There may be a tendency to over prosecute a black celebrity who is perceived to have gotten away with murdering two whites by the majority in the court of public opinion, imho.

[tv]

Contrary to public opinion, everything is not a conspiracy. It may simply be an over zealous prosecution. There may be a tendency to over prosecute a black celebrity who is perceived to have gotten away with murdering two whites by the majority in the court of public opinion, imho.I wondered when you were going to bring up skin color. That's as offensive a statement as if I said the jurors were quick to acquit because the victims were white.

[William Anthony]

I wondered when you were going to bring up skin color. That's as offensive a statement as if I said the jurors were quick to acquit because the victims were white.

I do not know why you find it offensive when the facts are that Simpson was a black celebrity accused of murdering Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, who were both white. The majority of the court of public opinion vehemently claim that Simpson got away with double murder. The majority of the American public is white. You have, IIRC, made the statement that the predominately all black jury was quick to acquit Simpson, because he was black. That can be viewed as an offensive statement. You have also made much ado about the salute given at the end of the trial to support your opinion that the mostly all black jury was prone to acquit based on Simpson's skin color. I do not know why you find my statement offensive, since it is just a statement of the facts. The fact is that one of the jurors, who was a black panther member gave a salute, which has been called a black power salute. There have been posts on the fact that the meaning of the salute has changed over the years and that whites use the salute. The fact is that one can interpret events taking into account the race of the participants in the event without it being offensive, unless it is offensive to some to mention the race of one group and not the race of another.

[tv]

I do not know why you find it offensive when the facts are that Simpson was a black celebrity accused of murdering Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, who were both white. The majority of the court of public opinion vehemently claim that Simpson got away with double murder. The majority of the American public is white. You have, IIRC, made the statement that the predominately all black jury was quick to acquit Simpson, because he was black. That can be viewed as an offensive statement. You have also made much ado about the salute given at the end of the trial to support your opinion that the mostly all black jury was prone to acquit based on Simpson's skin color. I do not know why you find my statement offensive, since it is just a statement of the facts. The fact is that one of the jurors, who was a black panther member gave a salute, which has been called a black power salute. There have been posts on the fact that the meaning of the salute has changed over the years and that whites use the salute. The fact is that one can interpret events taking into account the race of the individuals of the participants in the event without it being offensive, unless it is offensive to some to mention the race of one group and not the race of another.You don't recall correctly. I said that the jury made the statement that they "take care of their own". I'm not going to be drawn into another discussion about the black power salute. If you choose to take Simpson's race into account then from now on I'm going to take the victim's race into account. You may not be aware of this but racists aren't found only in the white population -- there are racists in the black community as well.

[William Anthony]

You don't recall correctly. I said that the jury made the statement that they "take care of their own". I'm not going to be drawn into another discussion about the black power salute. If you choose to take Simpson's race into account then from now on I'm going to take the victim's race into account. You may not be aware of this but racists aren't found only in the white population -- there are racists in the black community as well.

I am at a lost here. In one statement you say that I do not recall correctly statements you made about the salute and then you say you refuse to be drawn into a discussion about the salute, again. Please, clarify. I think that Simpson's race was put into play by MF, those who post the comment of the juror, and those who mentioned the salute. You have already taken the victims race into account in your prior post. I agree that there are racists in all communities, with which I disagree. The larger problem is what caused the racists and what role the race of the participants, to include the victims, may have played in the verdicts in the two trials and why, imho.

[tv]

I am at a lost here. In one statement you say that I do not recall correctly statements you made about the salute and then you say you refuse to be drawn into a discussion about the salute, again. Please, clarify. I think that Simpson's race was put into play by MF, those who post the comment of the juror, and those who mentioned the salute. You have already taken the victims race into account in your prior post. I agree that there are racists in all communities, with which I disagree. The larger problem is what caused the racists and what role the race of the participants, to include the victims, may have played in the verdicts in the two trials and why, imho.I quoted what the jurors themselves said. I don't see why that puts you at a loss. Truly speaking, I think it was more his celebrity that awed the jury but color played a part. After all, it was just a couple of white people compared to the famous OJ Simpson so what difference did it make? Let him off and teach the judicial system and LE a lesson. I'm not going to take on the broader subject of racism and it's causes on this forum. I heard a speech on tv last night by a racist pastor that would have been considered outrageous and unacceptable if made by a white counterpart...but that's life in America today. Some of us are required to be politically correct and some of us aren't. :)

[William Anthony]

I quoted what the jurors themselves said. I don't see why that puts you at a loss. Truly speaking, I think it was more his celebrity that awed the jury but color played a part. After all, it was just a couple of white people compared to the famous OJ Simpson so what difference did it make? Let him off and teach the judicial system and LE a lesson. I'm not going to take on the broader subject of racism and it's causes on this forum. I heard a speech on tv last night by a racist pastor that would have been considered outrageous and unacceptable if made by a white counterpart...but that's life in America today. Some of us are required to be politically correct and some of us aren't. :)

Did you hear the speech the pastor made today? I think he explained his meaning quite well, even though I do not agree with everything he said. I do share his view that there needs to be an open and honest discussion of race, without superficial platitudes in order to achieve reconciliation. Do you recall this post of yours?

"William, I think the prosecution could have done a better job. However, I think Marcia Clark and the rest of them underestimated the effect that Johnny Cochran's appeal to race was going to have on the jury. They thought the mountain of credible evidence they had would convince any reasonable person and that they would ignore color. Mr. Cryer's salute puts that notion to rest once and for all."

[tv]

Did you hear the speech the pastor made today? I think he explained his meaning quite well, even though I do not agree with everything he said. I do share his view that there needs to be an open and honest discussion of race, without superficial platitudes in order to achieve reconciliation. Do you recall this post of yours?

"William, I think the prosecution could have done a better job. However, I think Marcia Clark and the rest of them underestimated the effect that Johnny Cochran's appeal to race was going to have on the jury. They thought the mountain of credible evidence they had would convince any reasonable person and that they would ignore color. Mr. Cryer's salute puts that notion to rest once and for all."I told you I quoted what the jury said in regard to taking care of their own. How kind of you to take the time to search out exactly what I said.

I think the pastor is a racist and an idiot. He says he's not devisive but how else to explain why he spent so much time explaining what he thinks is the difference between people? I was especially charmed when he compared black children and white children to apples and rocks. Of course, his theory is wrong but then he's wrong about most things.

[William Anthony]

I told you I quoted what the jury said in regard to taking care of their own. How kind of you to take the time to search out exactly what I said.

I think the pastor is a racist and an idiot. He says he's not devisive but how else to explain why he spent so much time explaining what he thinks is the difference between people? I was especially charmed when he compared black children and white children to apples and rocks. Of course, his theory is wrong but then he's wrong about most things.

Implicit and expressed in your post is the idea that the juror and Cochran took into account of race as opposed to the evidence.

To think that people are not different is to ignore the facts. He went on to say that they are not superior or inferior because of the differences and that people should realize this if there is to be reconciliation. They are simply different. I have not done any research on right and left brain thinking as it applies to black and white children. Therefore, I do not have enough information to agree or disagree with what he said. I have noticed that black and white children, when confronted with a person of a different skin color for the first time take notice of the difference. I think that it is important for parents to reinforce the opinion at that point that they are just different, not superior or inferior.

[tv]

Implicit and expressed in your post is the idea that the juror and Cochran took into account of race as opposed to the evidence.

To think that people are not different is to ignore the facts. He went on to say that they are not superior or inferior because of the differences and that people should realize this if there is to be reconciliation. They are simply different. I have not done any research on right and left brain thinking as it applies to black and white children. Therefore, I do not have enough information to agree or disagree with what he said. I have noticed that black and white children, when confronted with a person of a different skin color for the first time take notice of the difference. I think that it is important for parents to reinforce the opinion at that point that they are just different, not superior or inferior.William, I see you've meandered off the subject. If a white person stated that blacks and whites think and learn differently there would be an outcry and you well know it. I keep hearing that what he says is taken out of context so I listened to the entire speech and it was worse than the soundbites. He's just making things worse for Sen. Obama. If he wants to help he needs to keep his mouth shut.

[weezer]

Oj daughter in college in the northeast and the son is in collage in Florida.Daughter comes home during summer and holidays and seems to be well adjusted as does his son. i have seen pictures of them as a group and everyons seems to be smiling and at ease.
Arnell works as a fashion consultant for various designer lines. Sean John is one and is knows in the los angeles and new york fashion industry.
not sure what Jason is doing but he lives in Miami. He is a chef by occupation,
so possibly working in a South Beach resturant.
IMO

That is the last i heard.
martin II

I'm glad that arnelle has evidently got help for her alcohol 'problem' -- The last I heard, she was about to hit 40, still living at home with daddy, and a 'party planner'. But we do know that as of late, she's not helping daddy write and hawk the story of how he butchered two human beings.

[weezer]

tv
did oj do anything to meet the law of asportation??


O.J. Simpson and the Law of Asportation
The Clark County, Nevada State's Attorney added a kidnapping count to the O.J. Simpson indictment. Kidnapping carries a potential life sentence and is a much more serious crime than any of the other charges against Simpson.

Karen and I believe that the State is loading up against Simpson to put extra pressure on him to settle.

What is the likelihood of convicting Simpson on a kidnapping charge? Not much because of the legal definition of kidnapping and the law of asportation.

The Nevada kidnapping statute is Nev. Rev. Stat.



Ann. 200.310 and reads that:

1. A person who willfully

seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,

abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a

person by any means whatsoever with the intent

to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the

person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or

robbery upon or from the person, or for the

purpose of killing the person or inflicting

substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact

from relatives, friends, or any other person any

money or valuable thing for the return or

disposition of the kidnaped person, and

a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries

away or detains any minor with the intent to

keep, imprison, or confine him from his

parents, guardians, or any other person having

lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or

perpetrate upon the person of the minor any

unlawful act is guilty of kidnaping in the first

degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without

authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes,

carries away or kidnaps another person with the

intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned

within the state, or for the purpose of

conveying the person out of the state without

authority of law, or in any manner held to

service or detained against his will, is guilty

of kidnaping in the second degree which is a

category B felony.





Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.



http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36735&Itemid=448

like from one side of the room to the other? ;)

[William Anthony]

William, I see you've meandered off the subject. If a white person stated that blacks and whites think and learn differently there would be an outcry and you well know it. I keep hearing that what he says is taken out of context so I listened to the entire speech and it was worse than the soundbites. He's just making things worse for Sen. Obama. If he wants to help he needs to keep his mouth shut.

Are you ignoring the outcry from the media? I do not know what you listened to as he explained that his comment about 911 was prefaced by the statement that he was quoting what an ambassador from the middle east had said. Why should what he says make things worse for Obama? Obama's record should speak for itself and he is not responsible for statements from the mouth of another that he has not authorized. I did not stray from the subject and the issue can be placed in the context of the two trials as to the difference in the thinking of the two races.

[tv]

Are you ignoring the outcry from the media? I do not know what you listened to as he explained that his comment about 911 was prefaced by the statement that he was quoting what an ambassador from the middle east had said. Why should what he says make things worse for Obama? Obama's record should speak for itself and he is not responsible for statements from the mouth of another that he has not authorized. I did not stray from the subject and the issue can be placed in the context of the two trials as to the difference in the thinking of the two races.I'm not going to argue about the reverend. He's a racist, an idiot and his sermons are full of profanity and blasphemy. If you want to reduce the trials to race that's okay with me. I don't think it's surprising that most of white America thinks OJ Simpson is guilty -- I think the shocking thing is that most of black America pretends to think he's not.

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to argue about the reverend. He's a racist, an idiot and his sermons are full of profanity and blasphemy. If you want to reduce the trials to race that's okay with me. I don't think it's surprising that most of white America thinks OJ Simpson is guilty -- I think the shocking thing is that most of black America pretends to think he's not.

If what you say is true about black America is true (by the way there is only one America), then they are correct as he has been found not guilty.

[tv]

If what you say is true about black America is true (by the way there is only one America), then they are correct as he has been found not guilty.Thank you for pointing out that there's only one America. I don't think they're correct to pretend to think he's not guilty but I understand the reason.

[martin II]

like from one side of the room to the other? ;)

In the caper i am discussing no one was moved from one side of the room to another.:cool:

[martin II]

Thank you for pointing out that there's only one America. I don't think they're correct to pretend to think he's not guilty but I understand the reason.

And that is?

[martin II]

Thank you for pointing out that there's only one America. I don't think they're correct to pretend to think he's not guilty but I understand the reason.

tv

I am not sure why you would offer the idea that what AA state as their opinions on the issue indicates that they are pretending.:confused:

[martin II]

I'm not going to argue about the reverend. He's a racist, an idiot and his sermons are full of profanity and blasphemy. If you want to reduce the trials to race that's okay with me. I don't think it's surprising that most of white America thinks OJ Simpson is guilty -- I think the shocking thing is that most of black America pretends to think he's not.

TV

I believe you may have been introduced to the reverend by media sound bites
which may have caused you to speak negatively about someone you may not have ever met or know.:mad:
martin II

[William Anthony]

Thank you for pointing out that there's only one America. I don't think they're correct to pretend to think he's not guilty but I understand the reason.

The reason is that a court of law found him not guilty. They are showing respect for the law.

[weezer]

In the caper i am discussing no one was moved from one side of the room to another.:cool:

OJ: Don't let nobody out this room. Mother*******! Think you can steal my s*** and sell it?

UNKNOWN: No.
OJ: Don't let nobody out of here. Mother****** you think you can steal my s***?
(inaudible)
UNKNOWN: **** you. Mind your own business.
UNKNOWN: Look at this s***.
UNKNOWN: Get over there.
OJ: You think you can steal my s***?
UNKNOWN: Backs to the wall.
UNKNOWN: I was trying to get past you.
UNKNOWN: Walk your a** over there.
OJ: You think you can steal my s***?
Tom RiccioUNKNOWN: Mike took it.
UNKNOWN: You, against the mother******* wall.
OJ: I know ******* Mike took it.
UNKNOWN: Search him.
UNKNOWN: And I know what Brian's trying to prove.
UNKNOWN: I'm cool. I am.
UNKNOWN: Stand up.
UNKNOWN: So so.
UNKNOWN: Get your mother******* a**es up.
UNKNOWN: Stand the **** up.

[weezer]

TV

I believe you may have been introduced to the reverend by media sound bites
which may have caused you to speak negatively about someone you may not have ever met or know.:mad:
martin II

Good Gawd!!!! the 'reverend' has 20 years spewing this hatred and filth from a pulpit and you want to call it sound bites? If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.

[weezer]

The reason is that a court of law found him not guilty. They are showing respect for the law.

that or they 'took care of one of their own' -- my guess is it's the second one.

[William Anthony]

OJ: Don't let nobody out this room. Mother*******! Think you can steal my s*** and sell it?

UNKNOWN: No.
OJ: Don't let nobody out of here. Mother****** you think you can steal my s***?
(inaudible)
UNKNOWN: **** you. Mind your own business.
UNKNOWN: Look at this s***.
UNKNOWN: Get over there.
OJ: You think you can steal my s***?
UNKNOWN: Backs to the wall.
UNKNOWN: I was trying to get past you.
UNKNOWN: Walk your a** over there.
OJ: You think you can steal my s***?
Tom RiccioUNKNOWN: Mike took it.
UNKNOWN: You, against the mother******* wall.
OJ: I know ******* Mike took it.
UNKNOWN: Search him.
UNKNOWN: And I know what Brian's trying to prove.
UNKNOWN: I'm cool. I am.
UNKNOWN: Stand up.
UNKNOWN: So so.
UNKNOWN: Get your mother******* a**es up.
UNKNOWN: Stand the **** up.

So far you have Simpson saying not to let anyone out of the room and asking a question twice. I do not see anyone asking to leave the room.

[William Anthony]

Good Gawd!!!! the 'reverend' has 20 years spewing this hatred and filth from a pulpit and you want to call it sound bites? If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.

In twenty years they could only come up with a few minutes of sound bites some of which were taken out of context. He explained some of his comments, like the fact that America sold chemical weapons to Iraq that were used against Iraq citizens and that the war against Iraq was started on a lie. He answered all the questions that were posed to him and got the person, who asked the questions, after she threw in her own question that she did not hear his sermons and could not remember what her pastor said last Sunday.

[William Anthony]

that or they 'took care of one of their own' -- my guess is it's the second one.

Not all blacks were part of the jury and some blacks show no respect for the law by saying that Simpson is guilty. Those that say he is not guilty are respecting the law of the land. Therefore, they have no reason to protect one of their own.

[weezer]

In twenty years they could only come up with a few minutes of sound bites some of which were taken out of context. He explained some of his comments, like the fact that America sold chemical weapons to Iraq that were used against Iraq citizens and that the war against Iraq was started on a lie. He answered all the questions that were posed to him and got the person, who asked the questions, after she threw in her own question that she did not hear his sermons and could not remember what her pastor said last Sunday.

I'm not going to argue about the imposter who poses as a preacher. he is not a christian -- but he is right -- there will be a day when he has to answer to a higher authority and I'm afraid he's not going to like the outcome. I'm done talking about this racist idiot on this board. :seeya:

[martin II]

Good Gawd!!!! the 'reverend' has 20 years spewing this hatred and filth from a pulpit and you want to call it sound bites? If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.

If those are your true comments you are badly misinformed.Unless you have been in his church and heard him do what you think he has done.But yes i guess you got your info from media sound bites

[martin II]

So far you have Simpson saying not to let anyone out of the room and asking a question twice. I do not see anyone asking to leave the room.

That is because no one did ask to leave.They were busy telling oj MIKE stole his goods and offering to get Mike on the phone.

[martin II]

I'm not going to argue about the imposter who poses as a preacher. he is not a christian -- but he is right -- there will be a day when he has to answer to a higher authority and I'm afraid he's not going to like the outcome. I'm done talking about this racist idiot on this board. :seeya:

weezer
what matters is that the members of his church know and understand him. Strangers making comments about him from media nonsense means absolutely nothing as far as they are concerned.imo

[socaldiva]

weezer
what matters is that the members of his church know and understand him. Strangers making comments about him from media nonsense means absolutely nothing as far as they are concerned.imo

Are you not a stranger to this man? Do you atttend his church, or do you also get your opinions from the media?

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to argue about the imposter who poses as a preacher. he is not a christian -- but he is right -- there will be a day when he has to answer to a higher authority and I'm afraid he's not going to like the outcome. I'm done talking about this racist idiot on this board. :seeya:

You mentioned him and called him names. This is not an argument and I did not agree with all of his comments, although I did find truth in some and do believe that he had a viable program that would lead to reconciliation of the races. The problem is that people are unwilling to engage in an open and honest debate about race, but throw insinuations about race, such as the "mostly all black criminal jury" and when asked to support their remarks want to end the discussion rather than openly and honestly discussing the disagreement without becoming disagreeable.

[William Anthony]

That is because no one did ask to leave.They were busy telling oj MIKE stole his goods and offering to get Mike on the phone.

It reminds me of the commercial, let Mike try it. Mike will eat anything. It seems they are admitting that Simpson's property was stolen.

[martin II]

It reminds me of the commercial, let Mike try it. Mike will eat anything. It seems they are admitting that Simpson's property was stolen.

They were embarrased that oj, their 'FRIEND' had caught them selling his stuff and were willing to toss mike under the bus on the scene to get from
under the heat.Obviuosly oj was surprised that it was them and what they were selling.imo

[William Anthony]

They were embarrased that oj, their 'FRIEND' had caught them selling his stuff and were willing to toss mike under the bus on the scene to get from
under the heat.Obviuosly oj was surprised that it was them and what they were selling.imo

We're just selling your stuff but Mike stole it.

[martin II]

You mentioned him and called him names. This is not an argument and I did not agree with all of his comments, although I did find truth in some and do believe that he had a viable program that would lead to reconciliation of the races. The problem is that people are unwilling to engage in an open and honest debate about race, but throw insinuations about race, such as the "mostly all black criminal jury" and when asked to support their remarks want to end the discussion rather than openly and honestly discussing the disagreement without becoming disagreeable.

I have an excellent video of a well respected white minister in a interview
on youtube making a very clear and intellegent support argument for Rev Wright. But don't know if i can post the link here.

Also, a comment i heard on the radio program discussing Rev Wright was 'When white people complain or make comments about the conditions in the country, it is accepted that they are making comments for the good of the country" "when black people make simular comments they are just complaining again and should be quiet"imo:cool:

[martin II]

We're just selling your stuff but Mike stole it.

IMO both should have been charged with posession of stolen goods as neither had sales receipts indicating they had paid for the goods they were trying to sell.

[William Anthony]

I have an excellent video of a well respected white minister in a interview
on youtube making a very clear and intellegent support argument for Rev Wright. But don't know if i can post the link here.

Also, a comment i heard on the radio program discussing Rev Wright was 'When white people complain or make comments about the conditions in the country, it is accepted that they are making comments for the good of the country" "when black people make simular comments they are just complaining again and should be quiet"imo:cool:

I think blacks are told that happened in the past and its time to move on. Those are the superficial platitudes that I think Wright spoke of. The Simpson criminal verdict was rendered over 13 years ago and still some can not move on.

[William Anthony]

IMO both should have been charged with posession of stolen goods as neither had sales receipts indicating they had paid for the goods they were trying to sell.


Did they receive immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony against Simpson?

[tv]

tv

I am not sure why you would offer the idea that what AA state as their opinions on the issue indicates that they are pretending.:confused:The reason is because I think that African-Americans are smart people and not easily fooled. I don't believe the majority of them bought the load of lies and fantasies the defense was peddling...so they must have been pretending. That's my opinion which I'm freely expressing.

[tv]

I think blacks are told that happened in the past and its time to move on. Those are the superficial platitudes that I think Wright spoke of. The Simpson criminal verdict was rendered over 13 years ago and still some can not move on.I don't see you moving on...why do you think that is?

[tv]

You mentioned him and called him names. This is not an argument and I did not agree with all of his comments, although I did find truth in some and do believe that he had a viable program that would lead to reconciliation of the races. The problem is that people are unwilling to engage in an open and honest debate about race, but throw insinuations about race, such as the "mostly all black criminal jury" and when asked to support their remarks want to end the discussion rather than openly and honestly discussing the disagreement without becoming disagreeable.The problem with "open and honest" discussion is that when a white person tries to be open and honest they are labeled racist but when a black person does the same they are just expressing their frustrations about the way they feel they've been victimized for so long. Until this stops there can be no open or honest discussion. You know what? I don't even care anymore. It used to matter to me but I'm tired of the whole thing. I treat everyone the same and that's good enough for me. :shrug:

[Jayme K]

Are you not a stranger to this man? Do you atttend his church, or do you also get your opinions from the media?

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Thank God for this post. I'm so sick of hypocrite comments like the one that you responded to.

[tv]

Are you not a stranger to this man? Do you atttend his church, or do you also get your opinions from the media?
Good point, Diva! I listened to his entire speech to the NAACP and it was just more of his ill-informed rants. I thought it was particulary nasty when he compared black children to apples and white children to rocks. It was a subtle dig that just shows how prejudiced he is.

[martin II]

You mentioned him and called him names. This is not an argument and I did not agree with all of his comments, although I did find truth in some and do believe that he had a viable program that would lead to reconciliation of the races. The problem is that people are unwilling to engage in an open and honest debate about race, but throw insinuations about race, such as the "mostly all black criminal jury" and when asked to support their remarks want to end the discussion rather than openly and honestly discussing the disagreement without becoming disagreeable.

There is much more in the link that some may find informative.

Life's Work

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. is one of the most widely acclaimed black preachers in the United States. Combining social concern, spiritual growth, and political activism, Wright, who preaches in a black traditional style, brings a message of hope, redemption, and renewal. In 1972 he became pastor of a small United Church of Christ congregation in the inner city of Chicago. After over 30 years in the pulpit, his congregation has grown to 10,000 and is the largest United Church of Christ congregation in the United States.



http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

[William Anthony]

I don't see you moving on...why do you think that is?

I can not move on out of my respect for the law and, I repeat, the fact that I accept both verdicts. I have expressed my intention to become a lawyer and I feel that anyone who disrespects the law disrespects my future profession.

[tv]

I can not move on out of my respect for the law and, I repeat, the fact that I accept both verdicts. I have expressed my intention to become a lawyer and I feel that anyone who disrespects the law disrespects my future profession.Then you should respect others who choose to stay with this case even though their reasons are different from yours.

[William Anthony]

The problem with "open and honest" discussion is that when a white person tries to be open and honest they are labeled racist but when a black person does the same they are just expressing their frustrations about the way they feel they've been victimized for so long. Until this stops there can be no open or honest discussion. You know what? I don't even care anymore. It used to matter to me but I'm tired of the whole thing. I treat everyone the same and that's good enough for me. :shrug:

If a white person in being open and honest feels that they are somehow inferior or superior to blacks,and vice versa, then they are racists, imho. No other race has been subjected to the system of chattel slavery, experienced the Black Code, Jim Crow, employment and housing discrimination, and segregation to the extent that black Americans have. Willie Lynch did not write an article telling how to keep a race enslaved for periods of time long after slavery had been abolished, except for the black race. No other race was considered to have no rights that the white man was duty bound to respect at the time the Constitution was enacted. No other race was considered 3/5 of a white man. I could go on and on. I think that this may help you to understand why blacks are frustrated by the fact that they still have not received equality in America.

[William Anthony]

Then you should respect others who choose to stay with this case even though their reasons are different from yours.

I have never said that I disrespected them. I have said that they show little respect for the law. I did not tell them to move on, only mentioned that they have not.

[William Anthony]

Good point, Diva! I listened to his entire speech to the NAACP and it was just more of his ill-informed rants. I thought it was particulary nasty when he compared black children to apples and white children to rocks. It was a subtle dig that just shows how prejudiced he is.

What about a comment that an entire race of people should be burned? Does that statement show you how prejudiced the speaker is?

[tv]

If a white person in being open and honest feels that they are somehow inferior or superior to blacks,and vice versa, then they are racists, imho. No other race has been subjected to the system of chattel slavery, experienced the Black Code, Jim Crow, employment and housing discrimination, and segregation to the extent that black Americans have. Willie Lynch did not write an article telling how to keep a race enslaved for periods of time long after slavery had been abolished, except for the black race. No other race was considered to have no rights that the white man was duty bound to respect at the time the Constitution was enacted. No other race was considered 3/5 of a white man. I could go on and on. I think that this may help you to understand why blacks are frustrated by the fact that they still have not received equality in America.William, I refuse to take the history of inequality on my shoulders. I was in grade school when my school was desegregated. Not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave. All I can do is treat all of God's children the same and be glad that so much progess has been made and is continuing to be made. I'm sure you are right when you say you could go on and on about this. Have you ever considered shedding the victim mentality and moving forward instead of constantly looking back? If you want to discuss OJ Simpson and the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown then let's do that. If not then I'm done with this discussion. Like I said before I simply don't care anymore.

[martin II]

William, I refuse to take the history of inequality on my shoulders. I was in grade school when my school was desegregated. Not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave. All I can do is treat all of God's children the same and be glad that so much progess has been made and is continuing to be made. I'm sure you are right when you say you could go on and on about this. Have you ever considered shedding the victim mentality and moving forward instead of constantly looking back? If you want to discuss OJ Simpson and the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown then let's do that. If not then I'm done with this discussion. Like I said before I simply don't care anymore.

tv
It seems that when Jewish people remind the world about the holocost and the injustices done to them as a people they receive wide spread support, even today. When AA talk about slavery and those injustices done to them as a people, they are told i had nothing to do with slavery, forget it, stop being the victim and move on. :(
martin II

[tv]

tv
It seems that when Jewish people remind the world about the holocost and the injustices done to them as a people they receive wide spread support, even today. When AA talk about slavery and those injustices done to them as a people, they are told i had nothing to do with slavery, forget it, stop being the victim and move on. :(
martin IIJews don't continually try to make people that had nothing to do with what happened to them feel guilty for the Holocaust. They have moved forward. I didn't say to forget it, martin. We should never forget what has gone before. Slavery was horrible, it was wrong and it should never have happened. You should feel immense pride for what your ancestors suffered through and triumphed over. I know it's a hurt that I don't understand but the people living today had nothing to do with slavery. If I could change the past I would. Blacks are slaves no longer...it's time to stop blaming everything on the past. Hold me accountable for what I do to you today not what someone else did to your ancestors in the past. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny. I really didn't want to continue this discussion -- I answered you because I feel we have a respectful relationship with each other most of the time. Now I really am done with it.

[William Anthony]

William, I refuse to take the history of inequality on my shoulders. I was in grade school when my school was desegregated. Not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave. All I can do is treat all of God's children the same and be glad that so much progess has been made and is continuing to be made. I'm sure you are right when you say you could go on and on about this. Have you ever considered shedding the victim mentality and moving forward instead of constantly looking back? If you want to discuss OJ Simpson and the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown then let's do that. If not then I'm done with this discussion. Like I said before I simply don't care anymore.

You are the one that pointed to the juror's statement that "We take care of our own", implying that race was an issue in the juror's decision. What has the fact that none of your ancestors owned a slave have to do with the inequality of the races? I am glad to hear you treat all God's children the same. I had some doubts due to your defense of MF. I do not know what you mean by victim mentality. I consider the lamp of history as the light to guide my future. The sad fact is that progress needs to be made, which is what Wright and others suggest on how to make progress through an open and honest discussion, rather than using the superficial platitudes of shedding the victim mentality and move on.

[William Anthony]

Jews don't continually try to make people that had nothing to do with what happened to them feel guilty for the Holocaust. They have moved forward. I didn't say to forget it, martin. We should never forget what has gone before. Slavery was horrible, it was wrong and it should never have happened. You should feel immense pride for what your ancestors suffered through and triumphed over. I know it's a hurt that I don't understand but the people living today had nothing to do with slavery. If I could change the past I would. Blacks are slaves no longer...it's time to stop blaming everything on the past. Hold me accountable for what I do to you today not what someone else did to your ancestors in the past. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny. I really didn't want to continue this discussion -- I answered you because I feel we have a respectful relationship with each other most of the time. Now I really am done with it.

If not feeling guilty, we should all feel ashamed for the Holocaust.

[tv]

You are the one that pointed to the juror's statement that "We take care of our own", implying that race was an issue in the juror's decision. What has the fact that none of your ancestors owned a slave have to do with the inequality of the races? I am glad to hear you treat all God's children the same. I had some doubts due to your defense of MF. I do not know what you mean by victim mentality. I consider the lamp of history as the light to guide my future. The sad fact is that progress needs to be made, which is what Wright and others suggest on how to make progress through an open and honest discussion, rather than using the superficial platitudes of shedding the victim mentality and move on.William, I don't care what you think of me or of what I said. This discussion is over for me.

[tv]

If not feeling guilty, we should all feel ashamed for the Holocaust.William, why should we be ashamed? America should feel only pride at the role we played in liberating the Jews and stabilizing Europe. My father took two bullets in that war and I have nothing but love and pride for the scars he carried the rest of his life.

[William Anthony]

William, I don't care what you think of me or of what I said. This discussion is over for me.

I really have not formed an opinion of you. I question some of the things you post, as I am sure you do me, and I question some of the things others post. I guess it is open and honest to end a discussion.

[Jayme K]

I can not move on out of my respect for the law and, I repeat, the fact that I accept both verdicts. I have expressed my intention to become a lawyer and I feel that anyone who disrespects the law disrespects my future profession.

The laws of our land are meant to protect but they aren't meant to take away each person's individual right to opinions or expressions of the opinions. I respect the right of that, and I feel that anyone that tries to take away that right is disrespecting the very foundation of this country.

No one is required to agree with or accept any verdict in any case. And do you really care, by the way, if someone disrespects your furture profession? There's a whole ton of shadyness in the land of lawyering - they're not all upstanding folks. You make that pretty clear.

[Jayme K]

William, why should we be ashamed? America should feel only pride at the role we played in liberating the Jews and stabilizing Europe. My father took two bullets in that war and I have nothing but love and pride for the scars he carried the rest of his life.

You really express yourself great! :beer:

[martin II]

The reason is because I think that African-Americans are smart people and not easily fooled. I don't believe the majority of them bought the load of lies and fantasies the defense was peddling...so they must have been pretending. That's my opinion which I'm freely expressing.

I have no problem with your opinion just think you conclusion is wrong.
the part about 'They must have been pretending"

you may have this opinion because they did not agree with your opinion of the verdict. Their opinion is just as valid as yours so no need for any black person to pretend.Pretend for what reason? Who are they pretending to?

Black people, because of their experiences would be inclined to look at the prosecutiions/police claims more closely than some whites without these same experiences. :cool:

[tv]

You really express yourself great! :beer:Thank you Jayme K, so do you. :) I try to say what I really feel and hope that it comes out making sense. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

William, why should we be ashamed? America should feel only pride at the role we played in liberating the Jews and stabilizing Europe. My father took two bullets in that war and I have nothing but love and pride for the scars he carried the rest of his life.

The reason I say that we should feel ashamed is because the world allowed it to occur by not taking heed to the words spoken by a monster. Instead of engaging in nation building, I think we should be engaged in more humanitarian endeavors, imho. There is always money to be made in war and you should feel pride for your father's service. We should feel ashamed that many, like your father, were wounded or killed in a war that should not have taken place had the world paid closer attention. By the same token, America did not engage in the War until attacked by Japan. This may cause some to wonder whether America was truly concerned about the Holocaust.

[tv]

I have no problem with your opinion just think you conclusion is wrong.
the part about 'They must have been pretending"

you may have this opinion because they did not agree with your opinion of the verdict. Their opinion is just as valid as yours so no need for any black person to pretend.Pretend for what reason? Who are they pretending to?

Black people, because of their experiences would be inclined to look at the prosecutiions/police claims more closely than some whites without these same experiences. :cool:martin, you just made my point for me. I think that the verdict was rendered in part to repay the inequality that blacks feel they have experienced from LE and the justice system. Johnnie Cochran said it himself "If not you, then who?" I didn't say my opinion was the only valid one. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion whether I agree with it or not.

[William Anthony]

The laws of our land are meant to protect but they aren't meant to take away each person's individual right to opinions or expressions of the opinions. I respect the right of that, and I feel that anyone that tries to take away that right is disrespecting the very foundation of this country.

No one is required to agree with or accept any verdict in any case. And do you really care, by the way, if someone disrespects your furture profession? There's a whole ton of shadyness in the land of lawyering - they're not all upstanding folks. You make that pretty clear.

First, I have not said that people are not entitled to their opinion. I have repeatedly said that they are. I respect that Constitutional right as well. I have the right to express my opinion that those opinions disrespect the law.

The idea of justice requires the acceptance of a verdict after a fair trial and the appellate process is done. To say that you do not accept the verdict is to say that you do not respect the tenants upon which our judicial system was founded.

I have not claimed that all lawyers are above reproach, as I think the books written by members of the prosecution and witnesses for the prosecution make this perfectly clear. I will at this point ignore your personal comment, as you know nothing of me or my character and it is obvious that you do not understand it or me.

[William Anthony]

martin, you just made my point for me. I think that the verdict was rendered in part to repay the inequality that blacks feel they have experienced from LE and the justice system. Johnnie Cochran said it himself "If not you, then who?" I didn't say my opinion was the only valid one. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion whether I agree with it or not.

The verdict was rendered due to the insufficiency of the evidence. Cochran told the jury to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof and to hold LE to the standard they should have been held, imho. He reminded the jury that they had the chance to do that in this case. No one else could have.

[tv]

The reason I say that we should feel ashamed is because the world allowed it to occur by not taking heed to the words spoken by a monster. Instead of engaging in nation building, I think we should be engaged in more humanitarian endeavors, imho. There is always money to be made in war and you should feel pride for your father's service. We should feel ashamed that many, like your father, were wounded or killed in a war that should not have taken place had the world paid closer attention. By the same token, America did not engage in the War until attacked by Japan. This may cause some to wonder whether America was truly concerned about the Holocaust.William, I'm sorry you have such a pessimistic view of America. America isn't perfect but it's better than anything else out there.

[tv]

The verdict was rendered due to the insufficiency of the evidence. Cochran told the jury to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof and to hold LE to the standard they should have been held, imho. He reminded the jury that they had the chance to do that in this case. No one else could have.If you want to believe that's what JC meant by that statement it's fine with me.

[William Anthony]

William, I'm sorry you have such a pessimistic view of America. America isn't perfect but it's better than anything else out there.

My view of America's past may be pessimistic but my view of its future is optimistic. It is not perfect but should strive harder to be, imho.

[William Anthony]

If you want to believe that's what JC meant by that statement it's fine with me.

I do not know for a fact what he meant but I do offer a less sinister meaning. Perhaps, if you know the date of the statement we can place it in context.

[William Anthony]

If you want to believe that's what JC meant by that statement it's fine with me.

I found this from September 28th

"We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it.

I think that you and Cochran have some common feelings about America.

[tv]

I found this from September 28th

"We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it.

I think that you and Cochran have some common feelings about America.This only reinforces my opinion about what he meant. Thanks for posting it. :)

[martin II]

martin, you just made my point for me. I think that the verdict was rendered in part to repay the inequality that blacks feel they have experienced from LE and the justice system. Johnnie Cochran said it himself "If not you, then who?" I didn't say my opinion was the only valid one. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion whether I agree with it or not.

I don't think so

the verdict was rendered because the proof was not there beyond a reasonable doubt.

You say blacks are pretending about the verdict. i am asking pretending for what reason and pretending to who :confused: ?

[tv]

I don't think so

the verdict was rendered because the proof was not there beyond a reasonable doubt.

You say blacks are pretending about the verdict. i am asking pretending for what reason and pretending to who :confused: ?Oh, for pete's sake, martin. Pretending that it's about the lack of evidence when in fact it's about payback for what they feel is past mistreatment. My humble opinion, of course.

[SlowHandSam]

If a white person in being open and honest feels that they are somehow inferior or superior to blacks,and vice versa, then they are racists, imho. No other race has been subjected to the system of chattel slavery, experienced the Black Code, Jim Crow, employment and housing discrimination, and segregation to the extent that black Americans have. Willie Lynch did not write an article telling how to keep a race enslaved for periods of time long after slavery had been abolished, except for the black race. No other race was considered to have no rights that the white man was duty bound to respect at the time the Constitution was enacted. No other race was considered 3/5 of a white man. I could go on and on. I think that this may help you to understand why blacks are frustrated by the fact that they still have not received equality in America.

Some how I think my ancestry might disagree that only the black population was treated with such segregation and discrimination. Our people were murdered, tortured and banished from their own land.

However, this isn't about that ... this is about OJ.

But that's just MO.

[SlowHandSam]

Oh, for pete's sake, martin. Pretending that it's about the lack of evidence when in fact it's about payback for what they feel is past mistreatment. My humble opinion, of course.

that and, I believe, it was done as a reaction to the other big trial that had just happened that resulted in riots and pure mayhem.

Additionally, the idea that the jurors couldn't or were unwilling to process the depth of information is always in the front.

[tv]

Some how I think my ancestry might disagree that only the black population was treated with such segregation and discrimination. Our people were murdered, tortured and banished from their own land.

However, this isn't about that ... this is about OJ.

But that's just MO.Excellent point, SlowHand. :) Native Americans still face a lot of prejudice in some areas of the country.

[martin II]

This only reinforces my opinion about what he meant. Thanks for posting it. :)

tv
i think it was the jury's responsibility to put a stop to the prosecutions efforts to jail oj then they had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is what they did.so if not them who.only the jury could make the verdict.

[William Anthony]

Some how I think my ancestry might disagree that only the black population was treated with such segregation and discrimination. Our people were murdered, tortured and banished from their own land.

However, this isn't about that ... this is about OJ.

But that's just MO.

Your people may have the right to feel that way but where they made slaves, treated like property, rapped with no recourse, lynched for looking at a white woman, and not given the land promised them. Your people were given some land and paid for their sufferings. Blacks have never received their forty acres or a mule, much less reparations. The outcry against the criminal verdict is about race, imho.

[William Anthony]

Excellent point, SlowHand. :) Native Americans still face a lot of prejudice in some areas of the country.

True and blacks face it in all.

[tv]

tv
i think it was the jury's responsibility to put a stop to the prosecutions efforts to jail oj then they had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is what they did.so if not them who.only the jury could make the verdict.We disagree about what he meant and how the jury interpreted his statement. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

[William Anthony]

tv
i think it was the jury's responsibility to put a stop to the prosecutions efforts to jail oj then they had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is what they did.so if not them who.only the jury could make the verdict.

Ditto.

[tv]

Ditto.Since you dittoed martin, I'll give you the same response as I did him. We disagree about what he meant and how the jury interpreted his statement. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[William Anthony]

Since you dittoed martin, I'll give you the same response as I did him. We disagree about what he meant and how the jury interpreted his statement. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree.

[SlowHandSam]

Your people may have the right to feel that way but where they made slaves, treated like property, rapped with no recourse, lynched for looking at a white woman, and not given the land promised them. Your people were given some land and paid for their sufferings. Blacks have never received their forty acres or a mule, much less reparations. The outcry against the criminal verdict is about race, imho.

yes actually.

[William Anthony]

yes actually.

I would guess that the portion in bold is where the similarities end.

[tv]

Your people may have the right to feel that way but where they made slaves, treated like property, rapped with no recourse, lynched for looking at a white woman, and not given the land promised them. Your people were given some land and paid for their sufferings. Blacks have never received their forty acres or a mule, much less reparations. The outcry against the criminal verdict is about race, imho.Don't worry, William. No one is trying to outdo you in the blame game. If I had forty acres and a mule I'd give it to you. However, don't even mention reparations. I don't work my fingers to the bone to pay anyone because their ancestors suffered. Maybe you don't understand that the Native Americans possessed this land and that's why they were given some land back even though it was far from equable. William, why don't you hold responsible the Africans that sold other Africans into slavery for any of this?

[martin II]

We disagree about what he meant and how the jury interpreted his statement. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

you know how the jury interpreted his statement?? how

[William Anthony]

Don't worry, William. No one is trying to outdo you in the blame game. If I had forty acres and a mule I'd give it to you. However, don't even mention reparations. I don't work my fingers to the bone to pay anyone because their ancestors suffered. Maybe you don't understand that the Native Americans possessed this land and that's why they were given some land back even though it was far from equable. William, why don't you hold responsible the Africans that sold other Africans into slavery for any of this?

I would take a Benz or Rolls Royce. We have progressed. I guess you are opposed to the reparations the native Americans received. I guess you don't understand that blacks fought against the Indians and made this country. Have you heard of the Buffalo Soldiers? I do hold Africans responsible for slavery and all those countries that allowed the slave trade.

[tv]

you know how the jury interpreted his statement?? howI have an opinion which I believe I'm allowed to have.

[William Anthony]

I have an opinion which I believe I'm allowed to have.

I will fight for your right to express your opinion even though I disagree with it.

[tv]

I would take a Benz or Rolls Royce. We have progressed. I guess you are opposed to the reparations the native Americans received. I guess you don't understand that blacks fought against the Indians and made this country. Have you heard of the Buffalo Soldiers? I do hold Africans responsible for slavery and all those countries that allowed the slave trade.I can't remember a Native American asking me for land or a mule let alone a Benz or Rolls Royce. Maybe you should consider paying Native Americans reparations for the suffering you put them through. If you hold Africans responsible what are you doing about it? Are you demanding reparations from them? Without their cooperation the slave trade would not have prospered as it did.

[tv]

I will fight for your right to express your opinion even though I disagree with it.Thank you. I would do the same.

[William Anthony]

I can't remember a Native American asking me for land or a mule let alone a Benz or Rolls Royce. Maybe you should consider paying Native Americans reparations for the suffering you put them through. If you hold Africans responsible what are you doing about it? Are you demanding reparations from them? Without their cooperation the slave trade would not have prospered as it did.

Where do you think the money the Native Americans received came from. Blacks were promised forty acres and a mule. They did not ask for them. In today's society the mule and land would not do any good. When I consider gas prices, I think I would opt for some type of hybrid vehicle. I am not demanding reparations from anyone, only pointing out that blacks have not received any. I would ask for them from all countries involved in the slave trade, to include Africa, if I was asking for them but that's just the lawyer in me.

[William Anthony]

Thank you. I would do the same.

Yes, but would you fight for my right?

[martin II]

Don't worry, William. No one is trying to outdo you in the blame game. If I had forty acres and a mule I'd give it to you. However, don't even mention reparations. I don't work my fingers to the bone to pay anyone because their ancestors suffered. Maybe you don't understand that the Native Americans possessed this land and that's why they were given some land back even though it was far from equable. William, why don't you hold responsible the Africans that sold other Africans into slavery for any of this?

Not all were sold. most were captured in their villages, under gun, by white europeans, changed and forced to march to the coast slave ships.

i do and i look at how the American industrial revolution was accomplished because of cheap cotton sold to europe as a result of free african slave labor
and inhuman treatment.As far as working your fingers to the bones, did you express this position when the us paid reparations to the japanese for their wwII incarserations.?

[martin II]

I can't remember a Native American asking me for land or a mule let alone a Benz or Rolls Royce. Maybe you should consider paying Native Americans reparations for the suffering you put them through. If you hold Africans responsible what are you doing about it? Are you demanding reparations from them? Without their cooperation the slave trade would not have prospered as it did.


The salve trade would have florished with or wothout the cooperations of the very few africans that cooperated. The great majority were taken from their villages by white european raiding parties at gun point and brought here to be SOLD to white land owners.

maby you need to hit some slave trade history books first.

[socaldiva]

Good point, Diva! I listened to his entire speech to the NAACP and it was just more of his ill-informed rants. I thought it was particulary nasty when he compared black children to apples and white children to rocks. It was a subtle dig that just shows how prejudiced he is.


You have a stronger stomach than I do. I only made it through about 30 seconds :) . The example you give is transparent & appalling imo :cuss:

[socaldiva]

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Thank God for this post. I'm so sick of hypocrite comments like the one that you responded to.

Thank you. It may be presented in the media, but it is the man speaking from his own mouth. You don't need to physically be present in the church to understand his words. This is like the silly arguement that if you weren't in the courtroom during the criminal trial, you can't judge the verdict, because you only watched it on television.

[William Anthony]

I know that some will find it equally as appalling that the Supreme Court stated in the Dred Scott decision that blacks were inherently inferior to whites. However, I have heard no mention of that or received no answer to my question regarding the statement that an entire race should be burned

[William Anthony]

I think that some may have not gotten the full color of the insufficiency of the evidence, because it may have been seen by some on black and white tvs.

[weezer]

If a white person in being open and honest feels that they are somehow inferior or superior to blacks,and vice versa, then they are racists, imho. No other race has been subjected to the system of chattel slavery, experienced the Black Code, Jim Crow, employment and housing discrimination, and segregation to the extent that black Americans have. Willie Lynch did not write an article telling how to keep a race enslaved for periods of time long after slavery had been abolished, except for the black race. No other race was considered to have no rights that the white man was duty bound to respect at the time the Constitution was enacted. No other race was considered 3/5 of a white man. I could go on and on. I think that this may help you to understand why blacks are frustrated by the fact that they still have not received equality in America.

I hate to bring this up but your rant is way off topic. Let's move on shall we?

[William Anthony]

I hate to bring this up but your rant is way off topic. Let's move on shall we?

I had moved on. Look at the post above yours. I was not the one to bring Wright up or the subject of race. Thank you.

[weezer]

Your people may have the right to feel that way but where they made slaves, treated like property, rapped with no recourse, lynched for looking at a white woman, and not given the land promised them. Your people were given some land and paid for their sufferings. Blacks have never received their forty acres or a mule, much less reparations. The outcry against the criminal verdict is about race, imho.

you need to expand your knowledge of history -- because you've got it all wrong.

[weezer]

I would take a Benz or Rolls Royce. We have progressed. I guess you are opposed to the reparations the native Americans received. I guess you don't understand that blacks fought against the Indians and made this country. Have you heard of the Buffalo Soldiers? I do hold Africans responsible for slavery and all those countries that allowed the slave trade.

dude! your ignorance of American history is giving me a headache. :punch:

[William Anthony]

you need to expand your knowledge of history -- because you've got it all wrong.

Why are you back on this after telling me to move on?

[William Anthony]

dude! your ignorance of American history is giving me a headache. :punch:

Take a pill and go to bed.

[William Anthony]

dude! your ignorance of American history is giving me a headache. :punch:

Read this.

"Buffalo Soldiers in the Guadalupe Mountains

The casual history novice passing quickly through Guadalupe Mountains National Park learns about the role ranching played in these mountains, that the original route of the Butterfield Overland Mail Stage ran through Guadalupe Pass for a brief time, and that this was the last Apache stronghold in Texas. But skirmishes between Mescalero Apache and Black troopers is less common knowledge. Yet hikers along the Foothills Trail walk through an area which was once the sight of a large cavalry encampment. To the untrained eye, there is no obvious evidence of the camp, but the close proximity to lower Pine Springs made it a valuable site to the military. An old rifle pit was discovered near this site. Another camp location at Manzanita Spring was briefly referred to as "Camp Safford" for Lt. Safford who died there of acute dysentery.

BuffaloSoldiers.com - Who are the Buffalo Soldiers? African Americans have fought in military conflicts since colonial days. However, the Buffalo Soldiers, comprised of former slaves, freemen and Black Civil War soldiers, were the first to serve during peacetime.
Despite some pleasant asides, military patrols in and around the Guadalupe Mountains were long and arduous, food was limited in variety, sometimes quantity, and almost always palatability - and water was scarce! In fact, many of the patrols made by the Buffalo Soldiers were essentially mapping expeditions for viable water sources and to record significant geographic features. This information would later prove to be useful in the fight against the elusive Warm Springs Apache Chief, Victorio.

Victorio's last skirmish with Colonel Grierson and the 10th Cavalry occurred in August 1880, only 40 miles south of the Guadalupes in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, at a place called Rattlesnake Springs.

Desperate for water, the Apache Chief made two attacks on the cavalry before being repelled. Grierson had cleverly cut the Apaches off from this critical resource; outguessing and beating Victorio's band to the springs in a marathon 65 mile ride through the harshest of country within 21 hours on horseback and wagons. Victorio was forced to retreat into Mexico, where he and his band were later killed by Mexican troops. Their demise was in and of itself a sad passage in the history of people indigenous to this country.

Little has been specifically written about the skirmishes between the Apache and the Buffalo Soldiers in the Guadalupe Mountains, but their spirits ride on the wind, patiently awaiting the long overdue recognition that they deserve in the annals of American history."

[weezer]

Read this.

"Buffalo Soldiers in the Guadalupe Mountains

The casual history novice passing quickly through Guadalupe Mountains National Park learns about the role ranching played in these mountains, that the original route of the Butterfield Overland Mail Stage ran through Guadalupe Pass for a brief time, and that this was the last Apache stronghold in Texas. But skirmishes between Mescalero Apache and Black troopers is less common knowledge. Yet hikers along the Foothills Trail walk through an area which was once the sight of a large cavalry encampment. To the untrained eye, there is no obvious evidence of the camp, but the close proximity to lower Pine Springs made it a valuable site to the military. An old rifle pit was discovered near this site. Another camp location at Manzanita Spring was briefly referred to as "Camp Safford" for Lt. Safford who died there of acute dysentery.

BuffaloSoldiers.com - Who are the Buffalo Soldiers? African Americans have fought in military conflicts since colonial days. However, the Buffalo Soldiers, comprised of former slaves, freemen and Black Civil War soldiers, were the first to serve during peacetime.
Despite some pleasant asides, military patrols in and around the Guadalupe Mountains were long and arduous, food was limited in variety, sometimes quantity, and almost always palatability - and water was scarce! In fact, many of the patrols made by the Buffalo Soldiers were essentially mapping expeditions for viable water sources and to record significant geographic features. This information would later prove to be useful in the fight against the elusive Warm Springs Apache Chief, Victorio.

Victorio's last skirmish with Colonel Grierson and the 10th Cavalry occurred in August 1880, only 40 miles south of the Guadalupes in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, at a place called Rattlesnake Springs.

Desperate for water, the Apache Chief made two attacks on the cavalry before being repelled. Grierson had cleverly cut the Apaches off from this critical resource; outguessing and beating Victorio's band to the springs in a marathon 65 mile ride through the harshest of country within 21 hours on horseback and wagons. Victorio was forced to retreat into Mexico, where he and his band were later killed by Mexican troops. Their demise was in and of itself a sad passage in the history of people indigenous to this country.

Little has been specifically written about the skirmishes between the Apache and the Buffalo Soldiers in the Guadalupe Mountains, but their spirits ride on the wind, patiently awaiting the long overdue recognition that they deserve in the annals of American history."

I've taken a pill and gone to bed.

[William Anthony]

I've taken a pill and gone to bed.

Good night.

[tv]

Yes, but would you fight for my right?Answered already.

[tv]

martin and Willliam, I'm finished with the black/white argument. I'm not going to be drawn into a prolonged discussion about the slave trade, how much I know about history, the Japenese internment camps or reparation. I will say Willam that if you'd rather have a car that depreciates instead of 40 acres of land then economics isn't one of your best subjects. I'm taking a pill and going to bed.

[William Anthony]

martin and Willliam, I'm finished with the black/white argument. I'm not going to be drawn into a prolonged discussion about the slave trade, how much I know about history, the Japenese internment camps or reparation. I will say Willam that if you'd rather have a car that depreciates instead of 40 acres of land then economics isn't one of your best subjects. I'm taking a pill and going to bed.

I see that you are sleepy. I never said that I would not take land. I said that would rather have the car than a mule. How quickly people jump to conclusions and want to criticize. I will chalk it up to your fatigue.

[tv]

I see that you are sleepy. I never said that I would not take land. I said that would rather have the car than a mule. How quickly people jump to conclusions and want to criticize. I will chalk it up to your fatigue.
Here's what you said:

In today's society the mule and land would not do any good. When I consider gas prices, I think I would opt for some type of hybrid vehicle.

Looks like you might be the one that is fatigued. Goodnight. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Here's what you said:

In today's society the mule and land would not do any good. When I consider gas prices, I think I would opt for some type of hybrid vehicle.

Looks like you might be the one that is fatigued. Goodnight. :seeya:

Again you jump to conclusions. Show me where I said I would not accept Land. Yes, I feel that rising taxes, foreclosures, unemployment, and neighborhood crime statistics devalue the value of land. I realize that land is a real asset and has a long time variable fair market value and, if conditions improve, the value of the land can increase, resulting in a capital gain. I reiterate show me where I said I would not take land. You do not use land as a method to transport you physically. You do use a mule or a car.

[William Anthony]

Good point, Diva! I listened to his entire speech to the NAACP and it was just more of his ill-informed rants. I thought it was particulary nasty when he compared black children to apples and white children to rocks. It was a subtle dig that just shows how prejudiced he is.

I apologize for waiting so long to respond to this post but it stuck in my craw. There is no doubt that what Wright said was impolite, rude and harsh. However, some have responded that it was appalling. What was appalling is that black children were forcefully taken from the parents and either the parents or the children were treated like property, sold into slavery and separated forever. They had no legal recourse, because they were seen as property rather than humans. To think that this did not have a long lasting impact upon future black generations is appalling. Yes, Wright was impolite, rude and harsh and, perhaps, his remarks were appalling. However, the acts I speak of were far more appalling than what Wright said, imho.

I point to this in a spirit of reconciliation. I for one would like for some white person to say that it was appalling what whites did to destroy the black family structure but comments like Wright's do nothing toward promoting healing. We realize that harm has been done to the black community that have long lasting effects, we are sorry for America's deplorable history and we are ready to start an open and honest discussion to see if we can understand the problem and work toward a solution.

[tv]

I apologize for waiting so long to respond to this post but it stuck in my craw. There is no doubt that what Wright said was impolite, rude and harsh. However, some have responded that it was appalling. What was appalling is that black children were forcefully taken from the parents and either the parents or the children were treated like property, sold into slavery and separated forever. They had no legal recourse, because they were seen as property rather than humans. To think that this did not have a long lasting impact upon future black generations is appalling. Yes, Wright was impolite, rude and harsh and, perhaps, his remarks were appalling. However, the acts I speak of were far more appalling than what Wright said, imho.

I point to this in a spirit of reconciliation. I for one would like for some white person to say that it was appalling what whites did to destroy the black family structure but comments like Wright's do nothing toward promoting healing. We realize that harm has been done to the black community that have long lasting effects, we are sorry for America's deplorable history and we are ready to start an open and honest discussion to see if we can understand the problem and work toward a solution.I've already said all that and will not say it again. The injustices visited on the black family in the past doesn't justify what Rev. Wright said in his speech. Even Sen. Obama is denouncing Wright and his remarks. If a white person referred to black children as rocks they'd be tarred and feathered. Nothing I nor any other white person says will ever satisfy you so would it be possible to discuss OJ In The News Again?

[William Anthony]

I've already said all that and will not say it again. The injustices visited on the black family in the past doesn't justify what Rev. Wright said in his speech. Even Sen. Obama is denouncing Wright and his remarks. If a white person referred to black children as rocks they'd be tarred and feathered. Nothing I nor any other white person says will ever satisfy you so would it be possible to discuss OJ In The News Again?

Yes, Simpson being in the news again is far more compelling a discussion to some than working toward the healing between the races to some. So, let's continue the discussion on things we can not change.

[weezer]

I apologize for waiting so long to respond to this post but it stuck in my craw. There is no doubt that what Wright said was impolite, rude and harsh. However, some have responded that it was appalling. What was appalling is that black children were forcefully taken from the parents and either the parents or the children were treated like property, sold into slavery and separated forever. They had no legal recourse, because they were seen as property rather than humans. To think that this did not have a long lasting impact upon future black generations is appalling. Yes, Wright was impolite, rude and harsh and, perhaps, his remarks were appalling. However, the acts I speak of were far more appalling than what Wright said, imho.

I point to this in a spirit of reconciliation. I for one would like for some white person to say that it was appalling what whites did to destroy the black family structure but comments like Wright's do nothing toward promoting healing. We realize that harm has been done to the black community that have long lasting effects, we are sorry for America's deplorable history and we are ready to start an open and honest discussion to see if we can understand the problem and work toward a solution.

anyone want cheese to go with . . .

[SlowHandSam]

Yes, Simpson being in the news again is far more compelling a discussion to some than working toward the healing between the races to some. So, let's continue the discussion on things we can not change.

If this were the board titled "Healing Race Issues" then perhaps the threads should continue but since this is a thread about OJ, then perhaps that's why others are encouraging some to move back to the topic of the thread.

And, since it is about OJ ... can we move back to discussing him?

[tv]

Yes, Simpson being in the news again is far more compelling a discussion to some than working toward the healing between the races to some. So, let's continue the discussion on things we can not change.William, you're a person full of anger. It doesn't matter what apologies white people give it will never be enough. The wound will never heal becuase it's much more profitable for predators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to keep it open and bleeding. They've made their money standing on the backs of black people. The fact of slavery and all the atrocities that accompanied it can't be changed anymore than the fact that OJ Simpson stormed into a hotel room and took the law into his own hands can be changed.

[William Anthony]

William, you're a person full of anger. It doesn't matter what apologies white people give it will never be enough. The wound will never heal becuase it's much more profitable for predators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to keep it open and bleeding. They've made their money standing on the backs of black people. The fact of slavery and all the atrocities that accompanied it can't be changed anymore than the fact that OJ Simpson stormed into a hotel room and took the law into his own hands can be changed.

This is part of the problem as I see it. When people remind others of America's history and the fact that it has an impact today, they are accused of being full of anger. Apologies without change are empty, imho. This may be why, judging from how LE treated him in the past, Simpson decided it was not beneficial to involve LE. The past inevitably plays a part in the present. The fact remains to be seen whether the charges will hold.

[William Anthony]

If this were the board titled "Healing Race Issues" then perhaps the threads should continue but since this is a thread about OJ, then perhaps that's why others are encouraging some to move back to the topic of the thread.

And, since it is about OJ ... can we move back to discussing him?

I think that is what I said.

[William Anthony]

anyone want cheese to go with . . .


:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

This is part of the problem as I see it. When people remind others of America's history and the fact that it has an impact today, they are accused of being full of anger. Apologies without change are empty, imho. This may be why, judging from how LE treated him in the past, Simpson decided it was not beneficial to involve LE. The past inevitably plays a part in the present. The fact remains to be seen whether the charges will hold.

America's history does have ugliness to it that should not be ignored, and I don't disagree with the statement that apologies without change are empty but I personally cannot change the injustices that were done. I consider all human beings to be wonderful variations of the human race and treat them accordingly.

To state that OJ may have acted in accordance with his history as it relates to law enforcement is removing all personal responsibility from him and that is not right, nor does it do anything to promote the ideal of becoming a responsible and law abiding citizen.

At some point one has to realize that reasons are not excuses.

Kate

[tv]

America's history does have ugliness to it that should not be ignored, and I don't disagree with the statement that apologies without change are empty but I personally cannot change the injustices that were done. I consider all human beings to be wonderful variations of the human race and treat them accordingly.

To state that OJ may have acted in accordance with his history as it relates to law enforcement is removing all personal responsibility from him and that is not right, nor does it do anything to promote the ideal of becoming a responsible and law abiding citizen.

At some point one has to realize that reasons are not excuses.

KateThank you, Kate. Beautifully stated.