O.J. In The News Again

[William Anthony]

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

I have offered an explanation for his actions, not an excuse. It remains to be seen whether he acted within or outside the law.

[weezer]

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.

:beer: :beer:

[Kate Sachel]

I have offered an explanation for his actions, not an excuse. It remains to be seen whether he acted within or outside the law.

Explanations have been offered for Mark Fuhrman's behavior as well but you certainly don't take those with a grain of salt. Generally when one offers an explanation for an action they offer it as an explanation to excuse those actions. I apologize if you were doing no such thing.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Explanations have been offered for Mark Fuhrman's behavior as well but you certainly don't take those with a grain of salt. Generally when one offers an explanation for an action they offer it as an explanation to excuse those actions. I apologize if you were doing no such thing.

Kate

Let me say that I am sorry for your loss and honestly did not read that part of your post. I thought you were visiting with your father. In this case, I offered the explanation as a means of understanding the actions. It is possible that MF had some unpleasant experiences with blacks. This may make his actions understandable but not excusable, since he was one of those sworn to protect and serve. The idea of whether Simpson's actions are illegal remains to be seen. They are not excusable but may be understandable.

[Kate Sachel]

Let me say that I am sorry for your loss and honestly did not read that part of your post. I thought you were visiting with your father. In this case, I offered the explanation as a means of understanding the actions. It is possible that MF had some unpleasant experiences with blacks. This may make his actions understandable but not excusable, since he was one of those sworn to protect and serve. The idea of whether Simpson's actions are illegal remains to be seen. They are not excusable but may be understandable.

Thank you for your condolences, I appreciate the kindness.

I understand what you are saying here, and as I said I apologize if I interpreted your words in a manner in which they were not intended.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thank you for your condolences, I appreciate the kindness.

I understand what you are saying here, and as I said I apologize if I interpreted your words in a manner in which they were not intended.

Kate

There is no need for an apology as I saw your post as a civil, polite and respectful response to my prior post.

[martin II]

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.
tv
There are Holocost 'FOUNDATIONS' in many countries that solicit money/support for that cause. A international Commitee was established a few years ago that investigated assets taken and interest not paid to the jewish people at many Swiss and other banks and they were forced to pay
large sums of money.Germany has various ongoing programs to correct the wrongs done to the jewish people during the Holocost and these programs have the support of current German citizens that had nothing to do with the holocost. So i am not sure your comment is accurate.
jmho
martin II

[tv]

tv
There are Holocost 'FOUNDATIONS' in many countries that solicit money/support for that cause. A international Commitee was established a few years ago that investigated assets taken and interest not paid to the jewish people at many Swiss and other banks and they were forced to pay
large sums of money.Germany has various ongoing programs to correct the wrongs done to the jewish people during the Holocost and these programs have the support of current German citizens that had nothing to do with the holocost. So i am not sure your comment is accurate.
jmho
martin IImartin, there are many programs for the advancement and assistance of black Americans but I'll just agree that you're correct and I'm incorrect. I'm not feeling energetic enough today to get William started again. :)

[William Anthony]

martin, there are many programs for the advancement and assistance of black Americans but I'll just agree that you're correct and I'm incorrect. I'm not feeling energetic enough today to get William started again. :)

God gets me started. Injustice, inequality and disrespect keeps me motivated. :)

[William Anthony]

martin, there are many programs for the advancement and assistance of black Americans but I'll just agree that you're correct and I'm incorrect. I'm not feeling energetic enough today to get William started again. :)

That is not the attitude to take, imho. I'll just agree so that a person will keep quiet.:) Open and honest discussion is the key to the solution, imho. The pill and sleep didn't work, smile?

[tv]

That is not the attitude to take, imho. I'll just agree so that a person will keep quiet.:) Open and honest discussion is the key to the solution, imho. The pill and sleep didn't work, smile?William, please feel free to expound your position all you like. The pill and sleep worked but I don't want to ruin the effect. By the way, I think you missed all of us and are glad to have us here. Just my opinion of course. :)

[William Anthony]

William, please feel free to expound your position all you like. The pill and sleep worked but I don't want to ruin the effect. By the way, I think you missed all of us and are glad to have us here. Just my opinion of course. :)

I will say that I missed you and I am glad to have you here, and will extend that to most of the members. :) As I have said, I will fight for anyone's right to express their opinion, even if they do so disrespectfully and illogically, imho. So, yes I guess I am glad to have all here. Missing is another matter.:)

[William Anthony]

William, please feel free to expound your position all you like. The pill and sleep worked but I don't want to ruin the effect. By the way, I think you missed all of us and are glad to have us here. Just my opinion of course. :)

I will take that under advisement. ;)

[tv]

I will take that under advisement. ;)Fair enough. :)

[William Anthony]

William, please feel free to expound your position all you like. The pill and sleep worked but I don't want to ruin the effect. By the way, I think you missed all of us and are glad to have us here. Just my opinion of course. :)

I will admit that I think that Simpson's manner in trying to regain the property he claims was his and I do believe he felt it was his was irrational and not the route most of us would have taken. However, I have some reservations of whether or not his actions amount to robbery and kidnapping.

[martin II]

I will admit that I think that Simpson's manner in trying to regain the property he claims was his and I do believe he felt it was his was irrational and not the route most of us would have taken. However, I have some reservations of whether or not his actions amount to robbery and kidnapping.

The guy that brought the gun obviously did not know who the two in the room were.If he had he would have know those two would put up no resistance.:cool:

[tv]

The guy that brought the gun obviously did not know who the two in the room were.If he had he would have know those two would put up no resistance.:cool:At least we all agree there was at least one gun present.

[martin II]

At least we all agree there was at least one gun present.

That is what some say. i was not there.

[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.

tv
Just to let you know reparations to some groups is not a foreign idea in America. It seems that it is only when decendants of slaves request consideration, people say no. i am not paying. you need to move on.


Vying for Guam's delegate and superdelegate votes in their tight race for the nomination, the two remaining Democratic presidential hopefuls have inundated the island with radio and TV advertisements, each promising long-awaited political gains: the ability for Guamanians to be able to vote for president, lifting the territory's cap on Medicaid and, perhaps the most coveted prize of all, war reparations in the form of more than $120 million.

A war reparations bill, sponsored by Bordallo, would issue payments to the survivors of Japan's control of the island during World War II and would create educational and research programs about the occupation. The legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/guam.contest/index.html

[tv]

tv
Just to let you know reparations to some groups is not a foreign idea in America. It seems that it is only when decendants of slaves request consideration, people say no. i am not paying. you need to move on.


Vying for Guam's delegate and superdelegate votes in their tight race for the nomination, the two remaining Democratic presidential hopefuls have inundated the island with radio and TV advertisements, each promising long-awaited political gains: the ability for Guamanians to be able to vote for president, lifting the territory's cap on Medicaid and, perhaps the most coveted prize of all, war reparations in the form of more than $120 million.

A war reparations bill, sponsored by Bordallo, would issue payments to the survivors of Japan's control of the island during World War II and would create educational and research programs about the occupation. The legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/guam.contest/index.htmlmartin, you have never been a slave yet you want to profit from the suffering of your ancestors? What about Americans that are of mixed race -- do they pay 1/2 the amount or whatever percentage of white they happen to be? You talk about Fred Goldman getting FREE money...what do you call reparations to people who have done nothing to earn it?

[William Anthony]

martin, you have never been a slave yet you want to profit from the suffering of your ancestors? What about Americans that are of mixed race -- do they pay 1/2 the amount or whatever percentage of white they happen to be? You talk about Fred Goldman getting FREE money...what do you call reparations to people who have done nothing to earn it?

What about the Native Americans, who were not around or were not victims of the atrocities perpetrated on their ancestors, but received reparations? The truth is that slavery, the black codes, educational, political, financial, and social discrimination, have a devastating long lasting effect upon future generations. Americans of mixed race are still looked at and considered black, if they are a mixture of black and white parents. The fact that they put other on an employment application or other documents does not mean that the employer considers or treats them as anything other than black. In those cases, I think they should receive full reparations.

[tv]

What about the Native Americans, who were not around or were not victims of the atrocities perpetrated on their ancestors, but received reparations? The truth is that slavery, the black codes, educational, political, financial, and social discrimination, have a devastating long lasting effect upon future generations. Americans of mixed race are still looked at and considered black, if they are a mixture of black and white parents. The fact that they put other on an employment application or other documents does not mean that the employer considers or treats them as anything other than black. In those cases, I think they should receive full reparations.In those cases, a civil suit for discrimination is in order. Reparation is a completely different concept.

[William Anthony]

In those cases, a civil suit for discrimination is in order. Reparation is a completely different concept.

Discriminatory treatment based on race and slavery are the reasons for reparations as it applies to blacks.

[martin II]

martin, you have never been a slave yet you want to profit from the suffering of your ancestors? What about Americans that are of mixed race -- do they pay 1/2 the amount or whatever percentage of white they happen to be? You talk about Fred Goldman getting FREE money...what do you call reparations to people who have done nothing to earn it?

tv

As you can see reperations is not a new concept and it is not only used in conneciton to reperaitons for slavery.

The concept is to pay the living for the crimes against their ancestors.So it is not a quesiton of what i have done to begiven reperaitons for the crimes against my ancestors.

If Germany was forced to pay reperations to current living Jewish people for the crimes done against their ancestors, what do you see as the differance in curant blacks being paid for crimes against their ancestors?

Same for reperatrions paid to living japenese for crimes against their ancestors.

I don't understand you objection to this issue.

martin II

The Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany (German: Luxemburger Abkommen, Hebrew: הסכם השילומים) was signed on September 10, 1952.[1] and entered in force on March 27, 1953.[2] According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the slave labor and persecution of Jews during the Holocaust, and to compensate for Jewish property that was stolen by the Nazis.

Main article: World War I reparations
Russia agreed to pay reparations to the Central Powers when Russia exited the war in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (which was repudiated by the Bolshevik government eight months later). Germany agreed to pay reparations of 132 billion gold marks to the Triple Entente in the Treaty of Versailles. Bulgaria paid reparations of 2.25 billion gold francs (90 million pounds) to the Entente, according to Treaty of Neuilly.

[martin II]

martin, you have never been a slave yet you want to profit from the suffering of your ancestors? What about Americans that are of mixed race -- do they pay 1/2 the amount or whatever percentage of white they happen to be? You talk about Fred Goldman getting FREE money...what do you call reparations to people who have done nothing to earn it?

TV
I have not posted that I personally have asked for reperations.So you may want to back up from your post as far as personalizing this issue to me.
It does seem that you may need to do some research as to the meaning of reperations and why they are paid to living people for crimes against their ancestors. It is not a foreign concept at all.imo

[martin II]

In those cases, a civil suit for discrimination is in order. Reparation is a completely different concept.

tv
did you not read the first line of Williams post??

[weezer]

I'm astounded that anyone would equate their history to the atrocities suffered by the Jews.

[William Anthony]

I have not seen anyone equate their suffering to the sufferings of any other race. What they are saying is that other races have received reparations in America, including the Native Americans and the Japanese, while blacks have as of yet not received them and that the idea of reparations is not a novel one.

[weezer]

I have not seen anyone equate their suffering to the sufferings of any other race. What they are saying is that other races have received reparations in America, including the Native Americans and the Japanese, while blacks have as of yet not received them and that the idea of reparations is not a novel one.

I'm sorry -- what reparations did the Native Americans receive?

Do you also believe that the 'buffalo soldier' should pay reparations to the Native Americans that they slaughtered and ran off their land?

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry -- what reparations did the Native Americans receive?

Do you also believe that the 'buffalo soldier' should pay reparations to the Native Americans that they slaughtered and ran off their land?

What reparations did the Native Americans receive-madam, you need to study your history.

The Buffalo Soldiers and other blacks fought for America. America paid the reparations. I would think that black tax dollars are paying for the reparations in one way of another.

[William Anthony]

In those cases, a civil suit for discrimination is in order. Reparation is a completely different concept.

This is a rather quizzical position that you have taken. It seems to say that employers discriminate against blacks, because they are black. The fact that an employer considers and treats a person of mixed parentage as black does not automatically mean discrimination, because all unfairness is not able to be shown to be discriminatory because of race. The presumption is that reparations are due because there has been discrimination or unfairness and that blacks, although not the direct recipients of such discrimination or unfairness have suffered because of it. This was proven by the baby doll experiment in Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry -- what reparations did the Native Americans receive?

Do you also believe that the 'buffalo soldier' should pay reparations to the Native Americans that they slaughtered and ran off their land?

Here is a link on the subject of reparations and the law.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1236-Reparations_for_Native_Americans_and_descendants_o f_slaves.aspx

I found it interesting that the article would say there were no treaties with blacks or that blacks were not a nation. We are part of the United States and always should have been. The article indicates that we were never considered citizens and that all men were not created equal. This is why the denial of reparations to blacks is so egregious, imho.

[tv]

tv
did you not read the first line of Williams post??I read his entire post several times. If someone is being discriminated against the law provides recourse in the form of a civil suit. I've been discriminated against for being a woman. As a man do you think you and every other man owes me and every other woman reparations?

Neither you nor William has ever explained how to figure out who should pay reparations and who is exempt even though I've asked several times. I seriously would like to know how that would be done.

[tv]

I have not seen anyone equate their suffering to the sufferings of any other race. What they are saying is that other races have received reparations in America, including the Native Americans and the Japanese, while blacks have as of yet not received them and that the idea of reparations is not a novel one.It amounts to FREE money, William. Just admit that the idea of getting a windfall from the government (translate that to your fellow Americans) is appealing. I find it absolutely appalling that some black Americans teach their children that they deserve reparations rather than teaching them to work and study hard and rely on themselves to insure their future.

[tv]

TV
I have not posted that I personally have asked for reperations.So you may want to back up from your post as far as personalizing this issue to me.
It does seem that you may need to do some research as to the meaning of reperations and why they are paid to living people for crimes against their ancestors. It is not a foreign concept at all.imoI apologize, martin. I always assumed you were black. :o

[William Anthony]

I read his entire post several times. If someone is being discriminated against the law provides recourse in the form of a civil suit. I've been discriminated against for being a woman. As a man do you think you and every other man owes me and every other woman reparations?

Neither you nor William has ever explained how to figure out who should pay reparations and who is exempt even though I've asked several times. I seriously would like to know how that would be done.

Yes women as a class have faced discrimination. I am not opposed to the class seeking reparations for the past injustices.

I think what you are not realizing is the psychological effect that the egregious form of discrimination and the social outlook and teachings that a race or class of people are inferior have not only on the class but also on the perpetrator. I do not believe that reparations are the key to making any class whole, although it can be seen as a beginning to that end. I, personally, do not know of any black person that teaches his children that reparations are unnecessarily deserved, or that they are deserved. I do know of blacks, who question why reparations were given to some races but not to blacks.

If reparations are to be paid to blacks for slavery and its lasting effects, then America should pay, as well as other countries that profited from engaging in the slave trade. I thought I answered it.

[William Anthony]

I apologize, martin. I always assumed you were black. :o

I think that comment was uncalled for. All blacks have not asked for reparations whether of not they feel they are called for. I have not asked for them, believe they are called for and I am black. I realistically acknowledge that inequality is alive and well in America because of stereotypes.

[tv]

I think that comment was uncalled for. All blacks have not asked for reparations whether of not they feel they are called for. I have not asked for them, believe they are called for and I am black. I realistically acknowledge that inequality is alive and well in America because of stereotypes.Perfect example of why there cannot be an honest and open discussion of race which you claim to so desperately want. Anything a white person says is considered out of line. Peddle your outrage to someone else...I've had enough of it.

[William Anthony]

Perfect example of why there cannot be an honest and open discussion of race which you claim to so desperately want. Anything a white person says is considered out of line. Peddle your outrage to someone else...I've had enough of it.

No, not anything but what is an attempt to imply that all blacks want the same thing is.

[weezer]

Yes women as a class have faced discrimination. I am not opposed to the class seeking reparations for the past injustices.

I think what you are not realizing is the psychological effect that the egregious form of discrimination and the social outlook and teachings that a race or class of people are inferior have not only on the class but also on the perpetrator. I do not believe that reparations are the key to making any class whole, although it can be seen as a beginning to that end. I, personally, do not know of any black person that teaches his children that reparations are unnecessarily deserved, or that they are deserved. I do know of blacks, who question why reparations were given to some races but not to blacks.

If reparations are to be paid to blacks for slavery and its lasting effects, then America should pay, as well as other countries that profited from engaging in the slave trade. I thought I answered it.

I thought we had:

"Blacks comprise only 12 percent of the nation, but, according to the above figures, they comprise 37 percent of the welfare rolls. This should not be surprising; in 1994, blacks had a poverty rate of 33 percent. We should not, of course, think it unusual to find poor people on welfare. Consequently, discussions of race and welfare must turn on different issues."

[William Anthony]

I thought we had:

"Blacks comprise only 12 percent of the nation, but, according to the above figures, they comprise 37 percent of the welfare rolls. This should not be surprising; in 1994, blacks had a poverty rate of 33 percent. We should not, of course, think it unusual to find poor people on welfare. Consequently, discussions of race and welfare must turn on different issues."

Yes, the statics indicate that blacks are still suffering disproportionately as it relates to economic conditions in America, and, consequently reparations are needed. Thank you for those statistics. I did not realize the situation was still so dire. If they only comprise 37%, who comprises the remaining 63%?

[weezer]

Yes, the statics indicate that blacks are still suffering disproportionately as it relates to economic conditions in America, and, consequently reparations are needed. Thank you for those statistics. I did not realize the situation was still so dire. If they only comprise 37%, who comprises the remaining 63%?

it seems that in this day and time, 'victim mentality' reigns supreme. suffice it to say that you can 'demand' all you want. . .

I'm not going to take this conversation any further.

:patriot: :seeya:

[tv]

it seems that in this day and time, 'victim mentality' reigns supreme. suffice it to say that you can 'demand' all you want. . .

I'm not going to take this conversation any further.

:patriot: :seeya:ITA. This conversation has gone way too far from the topic of OJ In The News Again. If people want to characterize themselves as victims that's up to them but I refuse to take part in it. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

it seems that in this day and time, 'victim mentality' reigns supreme. suffice it to say that you can 'demand' all you want. . .

I'm not going to take this conversation any further.

:patriot: :seeya:

Never made a demand. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

ITA. This conversation has gone way too far from the topic of OJ In The News Again. If people want to characterize themselves as victims that's up to them but I refuse to take part in it. :seeya:

I thought you felt victimized because you are a woman or was that mocking the discussion. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[tv]

I thought you felt victimized because you are a woman or was that mocking the discussion. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya::seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

I apologize, martin. I always assumed you were black. :o

my color has nothing to do with your post that i had personally asked for reperations. That was a faulty assumption on your part.

[martin II]

I read his entire post several times. If someone is being discriminated against the law provides recourse in the form of a civil suit. I've been discriminated against for being a woman. As a man do you think you and every other man owes me and every other woman reparations?

Neither you nor William has ever explained how to figure out who should pay reparations and who is exempt even though I've asked several times. I seriously would like to know how that would be done.

The treasury of the United States OF America would pay.

Every decendant of slaves. Labor and full interest in cash.
Just like Germany paid the jewish people with Arericas legal and banking help.
Just like America Paid the japanese.

However i would ask that your small portion be witheld from the pot as it seem that you are not adequately informed on the concept and i would not like to see your fingers worm more because of the countries efforts to right long standing criminal activity against blacks.imo
martin II

[tv]

my color has nothing to do with your post that i had personally asked for reperations. That was a faulty assumption on your part.You've spent two posts setting me straight. I get it. :seeya:

[martin II]

You've spent two posts setting me straight. I get it. :seeya:

Sometimes one has be be sure. you did also read my link on Germany paying reperations to the jewish people for SLAVERY. right?

[tv]

Every decendant of slaves. Labor and full interest in cash.
Just like Germany paid the jewish people with Arericas legal and banking help.
Just like America Paid the japanese.

However i would ask that your small portion be witheld from the pot as it seem that you are not adequately informed on the concept and i would not like to see your fingers worm more because of the countries efforts to right long standing criminal activity against blacks.imo
martin IIThere is never going to be cash payments for reparation so you don't have to worry about my portion.

[tv]

Sometimes one has be be sure. you did also read my link on Germany paying reperations to the jewish people for SLAVERY. right?I'm done with this discussion.

[Kate Sachel]

O.J. In The News Again would be the topic of this forum.

Perhaps those who would still like to discuss reparations should do so on the more appropriate thread, which allows the discussions of race: 9/10 Blacks agree: O.J. is probably ...". Especially given that we have posters who have made it clear, more than once, that they would like to end the reparations discussions.

Kate

[martin II]

It amounts to FREE money, William. Just admit that the idea of getting a windfall from the government (translate that to your fellow Americans) is appealing. I find it absolutely appalling that some black Americans teach their children that they deserve reparations rather than teaching them to work and study hard and rely on themselves to insure their future.

You seem to be rejecting internatonal law and universal history on the subject.

Accepting reperations for crimes against their ancestors does not mean that people don't tech their children how to lead good lives.
your comments does not make sense to me. imo
martin II

[martin II]

There is never going to be cash payments for reparation so you don't have to worry about my portion.

If the decision was yours i am sure there would never be payments.Fortunately it is not.:cool:
martin II

[martin II]

It amounts to FREE money, William. Just admit that the idea of getting a windfall from the government (translate that to your fellow Americans) is appealing. I find it absolutely appalling that some black Americans teach their children that they deserve reparations rather than teaching them to work and study hard and rely on themselves to insure their future.

tv
the slave ancestors would not call payment for back labor free money. they would call it payment for back wages and interest as that is what it is.

[weezer]

I find it absolutely astounding that anyone would compare their history to the atrocities suffered by the Jews.

[tv]

tv
the slave ancestors would not call payment for back labor free money. they would call it payment for back wages and interest as that is what it is.Deduct room and board with interest and you may find that the slave ancestors actually owe money. Now I really am done.

[William Anthony]

Deduct room and board with interest and you may find that the slave ancestors actually owe money. Now I really am done.

I don't think any black or African signed a lease, stating they owed rent, during slavery, or is that just another forced inequity that some want to place on them. Perhaps, we should move the discussion to the other thread as suggested.

[weezer]

I don't think any black or African signed a lease, stating they owed rent, during slavery, or is that just another forced inequity that some want to place on them. Perhaps, we should move the discussion to the other thread as suggested.

you go ahead -- we'll follow ;) ;)

[martin II]

it seems that in this day and time, 'victim mentality' reigns supreme. suffice it to say that you can 'demand' all you want. . .

I'm not going to take this conversation any further.

:patriot: :seeya:

It seems that the opressor has a new attack on those he has opressed by saying they are suffering from "victim menality." and they just forget the opression done to them because the opressor does not want to discuss it.:cool:

[weezer]

you want some cheese to with . . . .

[martin II]

Deduct room and board with interest and you may find that the slave ancestors actually owe money. Now I really am done.

If one was looking for a way to downplay the the level of the crime of slavery,
and put some blame on the slaves, that would be one way to try but it would not work.How about charging the slaves for the cost of the Atlantic transport from their villages in Africa to America.And the cost of renting the halls where they were sold to white slave owners.And don't forget the cost of the chaines they were forced to wear. That cost money also.
MARTIN ii:cool:

[martin II]

I find it absolutely astounding that anyone would compare their history to the atrocities suffered by the Jews.

You could not be serious.Both were wrong. it is just that slavery involved more people and for a much longer period of time.

[weezer]

You could not be serious.Both were wrong. it is just that slavery involved more people and for a much longer period of time.

OMG -- this is sad. Really, really sad. You honestly believe this. Amazing.

[weezer]

If one was looking for a way to downplay the the level of the crime of slavery,
and put some blame on the slaves, that would be one way to try but it would not work.How about charging the slaves for the cost of the Atlantic transport from their villages in Africa to America.And the cost of renting the halls where they were sold to white slave owners.And don't forget the cost of the chaines they were forced to wear. That cost money also.
MARTIN ii:cool:

cheese anyone?

[tv]

cheese anyone?Hi weezer, my room and board remark was to show how ridiculous the whole thing is but it was lost on our resident victims. I'm not sure there's enough cheese in the world to go with all that whine.

[tv]

You could not be serious.Both were wrong. it is just that slavery involved more people and for a much longer period of time.
There were approximately 12 million people taken from African for the slave trade. About 645,00 ended up in the Americas. Most were sent to Brazil. In 1860 the census for the slave population was around 4 million. Eleven million people were killed under Hitler's genocidal polices, six million of these were Jews.

[martin II]

OMG -- this is sad. Really, really sad. You honestly believe this. Amazing.

If by chance we are talking about the same subject i am amazed that you would find my post amazing.I believe the facts of history agrees with me.:cool:

[martin II]

There were approximately 12 million people taken from African for the slave trade. About 645,00 ended up in the Americas. Most were sent to Brazil. In 1860 the census for the slave population was around 4 million. Eleven million people were killed under Hitler's genocidal polices, six million of these were Jews.

The 12 million you speak of were from west Africa. Many others were taken from east africa sold by ARABS and many millions from west africa died on the way to America. Many of those that were talken to South America, the carribean were eventually transported to America. Do you remember the story of the Armastead ship.Those taken to South america and the carribean were slaves in the sugar cain fields which was sold to America at cheap prices
as a result of free labor.:cool:

[martin II]

There were approximately 12 million people taken from African for the slave trade. About 645,00 ended up in the Americas. Most were sent to Brazil. In 1860 the census for the slave population was around 4 million. Eleven million people were killed under Hitler's genocidal polices, six million of these were Jews.

12 million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census.[17]

tv
you left out the last sentance that stated that 4 million slaves were in the UNITED STATES by 1860.

something else you may not understand is:

The wealth of the United States in the first half of the 19th century was greatly enhanced by the labor of African.

Slaves never got paid for this free labor.

Slavery In the United States lasted from 1618 to about 1865 according to reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

The jews in Germany suffered for about 5 years.World War II

[martin II]

There were approximately 12 million people taken from African for the slave trade. About 645,00 ended up in the Americas. Most were sent to Brazil. In 1860 the census for the slave population was around 4 million. Eleven million people were killed under Hitler's genocidal polices, six million of these were Jews.

WRONG

Think of what you are saying.
12 million left Africa 645,00 ended up in the Americas.even if true where did the balance end up?

"12 million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census.[17]"

MARTINII

[SlowHandSam]

12 million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census.[17]

tv
you left out the last sentance that stated that 4 million slaves were in the UNITED STATES by 1860.

something else you may not understand is:

The wealth of the United States in the first half of the 19th century was greatly enhanced by the labor of African.

Slaves never got paid for this free labor.

Slavery In the United States lasted from 1618 to about 1865 according to reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

The jews in Germany suffered for about 5 years.World War II

Did she have to write US on it? I understood completely what she was trying to state. Perhaps you had trouble with her compound sentence structure?

So, because the Jews in Germany were only at war for 5 years makes Hitler's genocide campaign less severe or intense than the slaves? I think not. I can't believe that you would (1) compare what the Jews went thru to what the Slaves went thru and (2) that you would trivialize what true genocide is and was.

The Jews suffered for far more than 5 years. There are survivors of concentration camps that are still suffering to this day with what happened to them, their families, friends and etc. It baffles me that you can compare what was done to them to what happened to the slaves brought over. Remember that the majority of the slaves were NOT in the US.

[SlowHandSam]

WRONG

Think of what you are saying.
12 million left Africa 645,00 ended up in the Americas.even if true where did the balance end up?

"12 million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census.[17]"

MARTINII

It's called reproduction, Martin. And last I remember, the US is NORTH America. You're talking 3.5M people over the course of 3 hundred years. That doesn't sound that out of whack. Large families were common in that day and time.

[William Anthony]

Did she have to write US on it? I understood completely what she was trying to state. Perhaps you had trouble with her compound sentence structure?

So, because the Jews in Germany were only at war for 5 years makes Hitler's genocide campaign less severe or intense than the slaves? I think not. I can't believe that you would (1) compare what the Jews went thru to what the Slaves went thru and (2) that you would trivialize what true genocide is and was.

The Jews suffered for far more than 5 years. There are survivors of concentration camps that are still suffering to this day with what happened to them, their families, friends and etc. It baffles me that you can compare what was done to them to what happened to the slaves brought over. Remember that the majority of the slaves were NOT in the US.

I guess slaves did not have friends and families and etc.

[William Anthony]

It's called reproduction, Martin. And last I remember, the US is NORTH America. You're talking 3.5M people over the course of 3 hundred years. That doesn't sound that out of whack. Large families were common in that day and time.

Are you counting the children sired by the women the master raped? They were not considered to have families as they were not considered human. They were property to be bed, often against their will, which did not matter to the masters, because as property they had no will, and the offspring sold or traded.

If the protested they were whipped and disfigured or killed without any legal recourse, because they were not considered human.

[SlowHandSam]

Are you counting the children sired by the women the master raped? They were not considered to have families as they were not considered human. They were property to be bed, often against their will, which did not matter to the masters, because as property they had no will, and the offspring sold or traded.

If the protested they were whipped and disfigured or killed without any legal recourse, because they were not considered human.

so, you're saying that they weren't counted as part of the census?

riiiiiiight.

[SlowHandSam]

so, you're saying that they weren't counted as part of the census?

riiiiiiight.

I'm done with this conversation.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

Two threads hijacked to discuss the same thing that has absolutely no input or tie to why/how/when oj murdered Nicole and Ron.

[weezer]

I'm done with this conversation.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

Two threads hijacked to discuss the same thing that has absolutely no input or tie to why/how/when oj murdered Nicole and Ron.

Thank goodness for putting an end to this nonsense.

Now, let's discuss the butcher of brentwood: orenthal james simpson.

[William Anthony]

so, you're saying that they weren't counted as part of the census?

riiiiiiight.

No, I was asking were they counted since you attribute it to reproduction.

[weezer]

No, I was asking were they counted since you attribute it to reproduction.

william, you do understand that it is against the rules to highjack a board -- right? I am sure that there are other boards where the posters here who want to rant and rave about reparations, etc, etc can post. I, for one, would like to get back on topic.

[William Anthony]

I'm done with this conversation.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

Two threads hijacked to discuss the same thing that has absolutely no input or tie to why/how/when oj murdered Nicole and Ron.

To the contrary, there was a post made about blacks cheering the verdict. This case, the verdict and the cheering did not happen in isolation from other events. For instance, The Rodney king beating and criminal verdict, and the police using hoses, clubs and dogs on the peaceful civil rights protesters. Those images brought back images of what their ancestors endured during slavery and the fact that they did not receive justice. Reparations are a form of justice. However, this still does not explain the cheering completely. Perhaps, for the first time blacks perceived that they had received fairness, not justice, in a court of law. I offer this not as an excuse for the cheering, if one is needed, but as an explanation for it and why slavery and reparations are relevant to this thread, imho. I agree with the other poster that this is the thread for this discussion.

[SlowHandSam]

To the contrary, there was a post made about blacks cheering the verdict. This case, the verdict and the cheering did not happen in isolation from other events. For instance, The Rodney king beating and criminal verdict, and the police using hoses, clubs and dogs on the peaceful civil rights protesters. Those images brought back images of what their ancestors endured during slavery and the fact that they did not receive justice. Reparations are a form of justice. However, this still does not explain the cheering completely. Perhaps, for the first time blacks perceived that they had received fairness, not justice, in a court of law. I offer this not as an excuse for the cheering, if one is needed, but as an explanation for it and why slavery and reparations are relevant to this thread, imho. I agree with the other poster that this is the thread for this discussion.

The comment from Kate (and I) was that the landscape of the LAPD and how the community felt victimized by LE was relevant. Do not state that we have agreed that the hijack about reparations and slavery were what we agreed on.

Let's MOVE ON. Two threads hijacked is enough.

[William Anthony]

william, you do understand that it is against the rules to highjack a board -- right? I am sure that there are other boards where the posters here who want to rant and rave about reparations, etc, etc can post. I, for one, would like to get back on topic.

Why are you accusing me? I did not have the discussion alone. You made several posts on the topic. When reminded by a poster that this was the proper thread I posted on this thread. You continued to post on the other thread. You then came to this thread. I think that, if you did not feel this was a proper topic, you should have posted that, instead of continuing the conversation. To use the words of another, you do not put a band-aid on a gunshot wound, or to use a better analogy, you do not wait until a fire breaks out after smelling smoke and doing nothing to stop it and, in fact, pour gasoline on it trying to put it out. You might get burned yourself.

[William Anthony]

The comment from Kate (and I) was that the landscape of the LAPD and how the community felt victimized by LE was relevant. Do not state that we have agreed that the hijack about reparations and slavery were what we agreed on.



Let's MOVE ON. Two threads hijacked is enough.

I was not including you, because you were a part of the discussions. Since you mentioned Kate, she responded to the post on reparations and suggested the other thread was not the proper thread for the discussion, suggesting this one. I agreed. You and others continued to discuss the topics on the other thread. I understand why you want to say I hijacked a thread, now allegedly two. The fact is that I am not sure who first mentioned the topic but I did not force anyone to respond. Considering the number of posts on the subject, I think there was ample interest in the topic and consider it relevant for the reasons posted above, in light of the fact that blacks may feel that they have never received justice, to include reparations, but saw the verdict as fair in light of the police corruption.

[weezer]

Why are you accusing me? I did not have the discussion alone. You made several posts on the topic. When reminded by a poster that this was the proper thread I posted on this thread. You continued to post on the other thread. You then came to this thread. I think that, if you did not feel this was a proper topic, you should have posted that, instead of continuing the conversation. To use the words of another, you do not put a band-aid on a gunshot wound, or to use a better analogy, you do not wait until a fire breaks out after smelling smoke and doing nothing to stop it and, in fact, pour gasoline on it trying to put it out. You might get burned yourself.

This is not a proper topic for this thread or this board. You do understand that it is against the rules to highjack a thread or a board -- right?

[weezer]

I was not including you, because you were a part of the discussions. Since you mentioned Kate, she responded to the post on reparations and suggested the other thread was not the proper thread for the discussion, suggesting this one. I agreed. You and others continued to discuss the topics on the other thread. I understand why you want to say I hijacked a thread, now allegedly two. The fact is that I am not sure who first mentioned the topic but I did not force anyone to respond. Considering the number of posts on the subject, I think there was ample interest in the topic and consider it relevant for the reasons posted above, in light of the fact that blacks may feel that they have never received justice, to include reparations, but saw the verdict as fair in light of the police corruption.

and we now understand your take and position on the subject. Can we NOW get back on topic, please.

[William Anthony]

This is not a proper topic for this thread or this board. You do understand that it is against the rules to highjack a thread or a board -- right?

If you read the prior posts, you will find that I agreed and also suggested we move to the proper thread. If you read my post 1838, you will see that I got the threads confused. With that said, I did not hijack anything for the reasons previously stated.

[weezer]

If you read the prior posts, you will find that I agreed and also suggested we move to the proper thread. If you read my post 1838, you will see that I got the threads confused. With that said, I did not hijack anything for the reasons previously stated.

NO thread on the simpson discussion board is 'proper' for discussing reparations, etc. You have highjacked this thread and this board. I am asking that we please get back on topic: orenthal james simpson, the butcher of brentwood.

[William Anthony]

NO thread on the simpson discussion board is 'proper' for discussing reparations, etc. You have highjacked this thread and this board. I am asking that we please get back on topic: orenthal james simpson, the butcher of brentwood.

I posted the post where slavery was first mentioned by my research. That was the time for you to mention hijacking, etc., instead of engaging in the conversation until things you did not like to hear were being said. The last sentence is all my opinion, of course. Watch that gasoline can.:) I also agreed to end the discussion on the thread, which I find proper for it. I do not why you want to continue to FALSELY ACCUSE ME. I ALSO POSTED ON THAT I HAD THE THREADS CONFUSED. YOU SAY MOVE ON BUT YOU CONTINUE TO BRING IT UP WITH YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS. PLEASE, STOP.

[martin II]

I thought we had:

"Blacks comprise only 12 percent of the nation, but, according to the above figures, they comprise 37 percent of the welfare rolls. This should not be surprising; in 1994, blacks had a poverty rate of 33 percent. We should not, of course, think it unusual to find poor people on welfare. Consequently, discussions of race and welfare must turn on different issues."

I guess your post indicates that blacks havinmg been for some times denied fair job hiring practices and being the victims of mass discrimination have a poverty rate higher than their population numbers.Descrimination against blacks came out of treatment of them in slavery.They are not willingly accepting poverty Neither is the 63% poor whites on welfate that are part of the controlling power group in America.

Question;
Exactly what was your purpose for interjecting black welfare % in the middle of a conversation about OJ and or slavery? that i don't understand. can you explain?

[martin II]

There were approximately 12 million people taken from African for the slave trade. About 645,00 ended up in the Americas. Most were sent to Brazil. In 1860 the census for the slave population was around 4 million. Eleven million people were killed under Hitler's genocidal polices, six million of these were Jews.

tv
i will try to help you a bit.

Slavery atarted just before1680 and lasted to about 1865.
Some historians put the number that left WEST AFRICA at 12 million. others put it at about 50 milliom total West Africa, East Africa and the middle east.

I assume you meant to post 645,000 when you posted 654,00 but you say this number went to the Americas.I am not sure if you meant to America or not.But there were many more African slaves taken to all the Americas.

By 1860 there were about 4,000,000 African slaves in the united states.
Of the 12 million that were taken in chaines from West Africa about 8,000,000 died in the holding jails on the coast or were tossed overboard into the Atlantic ocean by the white ship operators because they had become weak or sick. others jumped ship rather than continue as a slave.

Slavery lasted over 300 years, about 15,600,000 weeks at no pay the longest period of salery of a people in the history of the world.The Holocost lasted for the period of World war II about 5 years.

[weezer]

This board and associated threads is NOT the place to discuss slavery, reparations, etc. Please get back on topic: orenthal james simpson, the butcher of brentwood.

[William Anthony]

I am still of the opinion that the robbery and kidnapping charges may be dismissed. Has the motion to dismiss been ruled on, yet?

[Kate Sachel]

I'm very sorry to see what happened on this board in recent postings. I am one of the individuals who chose to partake in the discussions regarding race and slavery and I'm curious at this point to understand why, if those discussions are inappropriate, each and every individual currently advising of such also chose to post at length regarding those very topics?

I apparently am misunderstanding a point on this one. I went as far as to put a posting out there advising that the discussions should cease because several posters indicated that was their wish, and yet still those very posters that I was defending got right back into the mix with discussions of reparations and slavery. I felt like an idiot at that point.

If those discussions are against the rules, then we all violated those rules.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Kate,

If you are agreeable, I would like to express my agreement in a pm.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

If you are agreeable, I would like to express my agreement in a pm.

I am agreeable.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

I'm very sorry to see what happened on this board in recent postings. I am one of the individuals who chose to partake in the discussions regarding race and slavery and I'm curious at this point to understand why, if those discussions are inappropriate, each and every individual currently advising of such also chose to post at length regarding those very topics?

I apparently am misunderstanding a point on this one. I went as far as to put a posting out there advising that the discussions should cease because several posters indicated that was their wish, and yet still those very posters that I was defending got right back into the mix with discussions of reparations and slavery. I felt like an idiot at that point.

If those discussions are against the rules, then we all violated those rules.

Kate

I was agreeable when we were discussing how the community landscape was in regard to LAPD. Then it went on to slavery. I posted a few back and forth and then it went off the deep end asking for reparations and it took over what we were discussing, that is why I felt it was then completely off-topic.

Once I realized I was contributing, I asked that it stop to keep others from reporting it as being a hijack, since I was so warned.

How the community felt LAPD interacted with them is relevant to the time/date of the crime. Anything else that is so far in history is not relevant, IMO.

And my issue is that it went from being on one board to taking over and monopolizes two boards. I am guilty of participating in the discussions, I do not deny that. However, when I was warned I was participating in the hijack of the thread(s) I stopped and asked that the thread get back on target.
--sls

[Kate Sachel]

I was agreeable when we were discussing how the community landscape was in regard to LAPD. Then it went on to slavery. I posted a few back and forth and then it went off the deep end asking for reparations and it took over what we were discussing, that is why I felt it was then completely off-topic.

Once I realized I was contributing, I asked that it stop to keep others from reporting it as being a hijack, since I was so warned.

How the community felt LAPD interacted with them is relevant to the time/date of the crime. Anything else that is so far in history is not relevant, IMO.

And my issue is that it went from being on one board to taking over and monopolizes two boards. I am guilty of participating in the discussions, I do not deny that. However, when I was warned I was participating in the hijack of the thread(s) I stopped and asked that the thread get back on target.
--sls

I am aware that after numerous back and forths you chose to post that two threads had been hijacked and that the discussion needed to cease. I am also aware that you were thanked shortly thereafter for putting an end to the nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out why no one took heed a good page back when I posted the same thing.

The bottom line is that the two threads were hijacked by all of us who chose to partake in the discussions.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I am aware that after numerous back and forths you chose to post that two threads had been hijacked and that the discussion needed to cease. I am also aware that you were thanked shortly thereafter for putting an end to the nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out why no one took heed a good page back when I posted the same thing.

The bottom line is that the two threads were hijacked by all of us who chose to partake in the discussions.

Kate

Kate,

I still think you were right in suggesting that the proper thread for such a discussion was the 9/10 thread. I do not think hijacked is a proper word for what happened. When it was placed on what I consider the proper thread that people wanted to end the discussion, I agreed to that. I think that you are correct that we, who participated in the discussion, must accept responsibility, if any is needed. Thanks for honestly taking personal responsibility for being off topic on one thread, if any is needed, and I do likewise.

[The R]

Kate,

I still think you were right in suggesting that the proper thread for such a discussion was the 9/10 thread. I do not think hijacked is a proper word for what happened. When it was placed on what I consider the proper thread that people wanted to end the discussion, I agreed to that. I think that you are correct that we, who participated in the discussion, must accept responsibility, if any is needed. Thanks for honestly taking personal responsibility for being off topic on one thread, if any is needed, and I do likewise.

I was the poster that used 'slavery' and 'holocaust' IIRC but I thought I did it on the 9/10 thread where I figured it was germane. If I did use those terms here I have no problem at all with the deleting of that and subsequent/related posts!

Thanks,
R

[weezer]

I am aware that after numerous back and forths you chose to post that two threads had been hijacked and that the discussion needed to cease. I am also aware that you were thanked shortly thereafter for putting an end to the nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out why no one took heed a good page back when I posted the same thing.

The bottom line is that the two threads were hijacked by all of us who chose to partake in the discussions.

Kate

I did participate in the postings and I do apologize to the Board. I think we didn't take heed because everyone was sure they could get 'their' point made.

[William Anthony]

I was the poster that used 'slavery' and 'holocaust' IIRC but I thought I did it on the 9/10 thread where I figured it was germane. If I did use those terms here I have no problem at all with the deleting of that and subsequent/related posts!

Thanks,
R

I do not think you were wrong and I want to make that perfectly clear. I just wanted to alert some that they were falsely accusing me. I believe that your post lead to an open and honest discussion and people got "their" points across exceedingly well. With that said, I am willing to end the discussion and see no need to blame anyone.

[FDInLaw]

I was the poster that used 'slavery' and 'holocaust' IIRC but I thought I did it on the 9/10 thread where I figured it was germane. If I did use those terms here I have no problem at all with the deleting of that and subsequent/related posts!

Thanks,
R

I do not think you were wrong and I want to make that perfectly clear. I just wanted to alert some that they were falsely accusing me. I believe that your post lead to an open and honest discussion and people got "their" points across exceedingly well. With that said, I am willing to end the discussion and see no need to blame anyone.
Please let me state that I was enjoying this conversation. How old is this case? Why not explore the historical and cultural atmosphere in which OJ's trial took place? My suggestion would be to start a new thread for this topic. . . then the few that don't want to discuss it will hopefully stop making an issue of it. JMHO :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Please let me state that I was enjoying this conversation. How old is this case? Why not explore the historical and cultural atmosphere in which OJ's trial took place? My suggestion would be to start a new thread for this topic. . . then the few that don't want to discuss it will hopefully stop making an issue of it. JMHO :seeya:

I too was enjoying the discussion and I think your idea is an excellent one. I hope someone will start that thread and posters will speak openly and honestly about their feelings in a polite, civil and respectful manner.

[martin II]

I too was enjoying the discussion and I think your idea is an excellent one. I hope someone will start that thread and posters will speak openly and honestly about their feelings in a polite, civil and respectful manner.

Are we in agreement that 9/10 is the thread to discuss the culture climate during the oj trial and that this culture differance comes from American slavery an its efects on blacks.

[William Anthony]

Are we in agreement that 9/10 is the thread to discuss the culture climate during the oj trial and that this culture differance comes from American slavery an its efects on blacks.

I would agree but out of respect for those that do not wish to discuss those issues I think FDInlaw had an excellent idea. I do not know what happened to thread title the Role of Race in the Simpson trial. Perhaps, someone could come up with a name for the new thread. I do not know if the moderator would agree to the thread. There are posts made on the color of Simpson's skin, what the majority of Americans think, etc., all of which skirt around the issue. I think it is almost impossible to discuss the trial without the subject of race coming in, unfortunately.

[martin II]

It's called reproduction, Martin. And last I remember, the US is NORTH America. You're talking 3.5M people over the course of 3 hundred years. That doesn't sound that out of whack. Large families were common in that day and time.

The u.s. and canada IS NORTH America.

The issue discussed was how many slaves were brought to THE UNITED STATES not the Americas. 4 million slaves is 4 million slaves so yes it was all out of 'WHACK' There should have been none.

[weezer]

The u.s. and canada IS NORTH America.

The issue discussed was how many slaves were brought to THE UNITED STATES not the Americas. 4 million slaves is 4 million slaves so yes it was all out of 'WHACK' There should have been none.

'slavery' has nothing to do with 'oj in the news again' -- :rolleyes:

[martin II]

'slavery' has nothing to do with 'oj in the news again' -- :rolleyes:


weezer
I responded to a post from SlowHandSam directed to me so maby you should advise her/him

martin II

[SlowHandSam]

weezer
I responded to a post from SlowHandSam directed to me so maby you should advise her/him

martin II

Nice try Martin, but you know full well that post was written before I received my warning and before I asked the thread to move on because of the hijack warning.

Don't try to tangle me into your stupid web to derail again. I took the warning and moved on.

[SlowHandSam]

I was reading an article that came out a couple of months ago where the question had been posed if Drew Peterson was the "new OJ Simpson".

Does anyone have any thoughts on that comparison? Would that be off topic to this board? I mean, it was "in the news" but not directly related to the case just generally speaking.

I wonder if that will forever be a comparison brought out for men who have abused and murdered their wives.

[William Anthony]

I might be wrong and, if I am feel free to correct me and I will admit it. I think you were the first person to use the word hijacked but continued to post on the subject. I think we can find out by the times of the post. Not blaming, just trying to keep the record straight.

[William Anthony]

I was reading an article that came out a couple of months ago where the question had been posed if Drew Peterson was the "new OJ Simpson".

Does anyone have any thoughts on that comparison? Would that be off topic to this board? I mean, it was "in the news" but not directly related to the case just generally speaking.

I wonder if that will forever be a comparison brought out for men who have abused and murdered their wives.

It might be the comparison of those who abused their wives but the evidence is unclear as to whether or not they murdered them. Has Drew Peterson been found not guilty?

[SlowHandSam]

I might be wrong and, if I am feel free to correct me and I will admit it. I think you were the first person to use the word hijacked but continued to post on the subject. I think we can find out by the times of the post. Not blaming, just trying to keep the record straight.

Actually, I did not post on the subject after I received my warning.

There is no record to set straight because I moved on.

[SlowHandSam]

It might be the comparison of those who abused their wives but the evidence is unclear as to whether or not they murdered them. Has Drew Peterson been found not guilty?

For me, the verdicts don't matter with the intent of the question.

Ultimately, there are many who believe OJ abused and murdered his wife. Likewise, there are many who believe that Drew abused and murdered wife wife.

I guess the nut of my question is I do wonder if it will forever be a comparison to men who have abused and murdered their wives ... to be compared to OJ? Will he be the "Compare" checkbox as the template, if you will, for these types of crimes.

And, if for an awful reason, these other men get out of the charges (due to lack of evidence, "mistakes" or the juries inability to understand evidence) ... will he also carry the "you're just like OJ" stigma forever?

[William Anthony]

Actually, I did not post on the subject after I received my warning.

There is no record to set straight because I moved on.

In my research, I found that you used the word hijacked on the 9/10 thread at about 1:15, yesterday and then it was used by another poster on the in the news thread at 2:01. Another poster mentioned that we might be off topic at 12:52 (I think), yesterday. You posted on slavery after that, IIRC, the post's # was 1829, approximately 20 posts after the off topic suggestion. We have honestly accepted responsibility for what happened. There is no need for any of us to place blame. I think we should forget about it and not try to blame anyone and respond to each other in a civil, polite and respectful manner, so that the level of this community can be raised.

[William Anthony]

For me, the verdicts don't matter with the intent of the question.

Ultimately, there are many who believe OJ abused and murdered his wife. Likewise, there are many who believe that Drew abused and murdered wife wife.

I guess the nut of my question is I do wonder if it will forever be a comparison to men who have abused and murdered their wives ... to be compared to OJ? Will he be the "Compare" checkbox as the template, if you will, for these types of crimes.

And, if for an awful reason, these other men get out of the charges (due to lack of evidence, "mistakes" or the juries inability to understand evidence) ... will he also carry the "you're just like OJ" stigma forever?

Perhaps to those that will not accept the verdict, if he, like O.J., is found not guilty.

[SlowHandSam]

In my research, I found that you used the word hijacked on the 9/10 thread at about 1:15, yesterday and then it was used by another poster on the in the news thread at 2:01. Another poster mentioned that we might be off topic at 12:52 (I think), yesterday. You posted on slavery after that, IIRC, the post's # was 1829, approximately 20 posts after the off topic suggestion. We have honestly accepted responsibility for what happened. There is no need for any of us to place blame. I think we should forget about it and not try to blame anyone and respond to each other in a civil, polite and respectful manner, so that the level of this community can be raised.

Actually, William, you are incorrect. I had multiple posts and I admitted, many posts ago, that I do not deny I participated. However, once I received my warning, I stopped UNLESS it was to defend against false statements that you or Martin made against me. And even then it was not furthering the derail of the board but to correct the false statements. I did not post anything about slavery following my warning or my comment that the thread(s) had been hijacked.

I've moved on, why can't you just drop it? It seems to me that you are the one who is choosing to not move on by continually bringing this back up.

So can we get back on topic, finally, once and for all?

edited to show sequence
#1829, 1830, 1833 all on 5/5 from 7:51pm until 8:12pm participating in the discussion
I received a warning
#1834 5/5 at 8:17pm stated we needed to stop and used the word hijacked
#1839 5/5 at 8:40pm responding to a post where I explain that I was agreeable to the initial discussion with how it related to LAPD and the communities perception
#1854 acknowledged my involvement in discussions and took responsibility
moved on until attacked and now have to answer with this stupid posts.

[William Anthony]

Actually, William, you are incorrect. I had multiple posts and I admitted, many posts ago, that I do not deny I participated. However, once I received my warning, I stopped UNLESS it was to defend against false statements that you or Martin made against me. And even then it was not furthering the derail of the board but to correct the false statements. I did not post anything about slavery following my warning or my comment that the thread(s) had been hijacked.

I've moved on, why can't you just drop it? It seems to me that you are the one who is choosing to not move on by continually bringing this back up.

So can we get back on topic, finally, once and for all?

edited to show sequence
#1829, 1830, 1833 all on 5/5 from 7:51pm until 8:12pm participating in the discussion
I received a warning
#1834 5/5 at 8:17pm stated we needed to stop and used the word hijacked
#1839 5/5 at 8:40pm responding to a post where I explain that I was agreeable to the initial discussion with how it related to LAPD and the communities perception
#1854 acknowledged my involvement in discussions and took responsibility
moved on until attacked and now have to answer with this stupid posts.

Not attacked. Attempt to set the record straight. If you do not consider the post 20 posts before #1829 a warning as to off topic/highjacking, then we simply have a miscommunication. In that event, let me apologize.

[William Anthony]

For me, the verdicts don't matter with the intent of the question.

Ultimately, there are many who believe OJ abused and murdered his wife. Likewise, there are many who believe that Drew abused and murdered wife wife.



I guess the presumption of innocence and the respect for the legal process mean nothing to many.

[SlowHandSam]

I guess the presumption of innocence and the respect for the legal process mean nothing to many.

I don't think that's it, at least not for me.

For me, simply, it's "what makes sense" and "if you act shady, then you must have done something shady".

I believe in a presumption of innocence but as soon as pieces start clicking together in the puzzle, that presumption is no longer valid, for me.

I have plenty of respect for the legal process - that's why I take offense with all the attacks against LE and the CJS. When I was in college and studying CJ, I developed a significant respect for what they do and the fact that they are humans who can make mistakes, emotional connections to cases and ultimately successes in their respected fields.

At the end of the day, if all the pointers are directed in one direction - why would I walk against the current? That's not to say I'm a follower, but I do believe that there are reasons the pointers all face one direction. All the investigations, conversations, tests etc create those pointers ...

[William Anthony]

I don't think that's it, at least not for me.

For me, simply, it's "what makes sense" and "if you act shady, then you must have done something shady".

I believe in a presumption of innocence but as soon as pieces start clicking together in the puzzle, that presumption is no longer valid, for me.

I have plenty of respect for the legal process - that's why I take offense with all the attacks against LE and the CJS. When I was in college and studying CJ, I developed a significant respect for what they do and the fact that they are humans who can make mistakes, emotional connections to cases and ultimately successes in their respected fields.

At the end of the day, if all the pointers are directed in one direction - why would I walk against the current? That's not to say I'm a follower, but I do believe that there are reasons the pointers all face one direction. All the investigations, conversations, tests etc create those pointers ...

I have not per se studied criminal justice. I have talked with several people who are majoring in CJ. I respect your respect for your field of study and those involved in that field. I study courses related to the law. The presumption for me is not lost until all the evidence is presented and the accused has been found guilty, to include the conclusion of the appellate process.

[weezer]

I was reading an article that came out a couple of months ago where the question had been posed if Drew Peterson was the "new OJ Simpson".

Does anyone have any thoughts on that comparison? Would that be off topic to this board? I mean, it was "in the news" but not directly related to the case just generally speaking.

I wonder if that will forever be a comparison brought out for men who have abused and murdered their wives.

I remember reading that during/after the criminal trial, there was an increase in the number of help calls to abuse lines.

I think the men who are capable of mental, emotional and physical abuse and/or murder share common personality traits -- sociopaths.

[William Anthony]

I remember reading that during/after the criminal trial, there was an increase in the number of help calls to abuse lines.

I think the men who are capable of mental, emotional and physical abuse and/or murder share common personality traits -- sociopaths.

Would that include members of LE?

[weezer]

Would that include members of LE?

I'm sure it did. and lawyers -- heck maybe even the magnificent mr johnny's wife!

dude, you really need to get over the hate for LE --

[William Anthony]

I'm sure it did. and lawyers -- heck maybe even the magnificent mr johnny's wife!

dude, you really need to get over the hate for LE --

I do not hate anyone and was just wondering if you think MF fit your description.

[weezer]

I do not hate anyone and was just wondering if you think MF fit your description.

actually, no. now orenthal and johnny cochran do.

[martin II]

I remember reading that during/after the criminal trial, there was an increase in the number of help calls to abuse lines.

I think the men who are capable of mental, emotional and physical abuse and/or murder share common personality traits -- sociopaths.


and these calls that you remember had what to do with the oj trial.

[martin II]

Nice try Martin, but you know full well that post was written before I received my warning and before I asked the thread to move on because of the hijack warning.

Don't try to tangle me into your stupid web to derail again. I took the warning and moved on.

Did you mean to call my post stupid or did i not understand your comment?

[weezer]

and these calls that you remember had what to do with the oj trial.

I was responding to post #1868

[William Anthony]

According to one source I found, the robbery and kidnapping charges will not be dropped. The judge said that, while this is not the typical kidnapping charge, the charges will go forward. Does anyone know if the trial will be televised? I don't think it will but I am hoping. If I am repeating information already known, then excuse me. I am trying to catch up.

[martin II]

According to one source I found, the robbery and kidnapping charges will not be dropped. The judge said that, while this is not the typical kidnapping charge, the charges will go forward. Does anyone know if the trial will be televised? I don't think it will but I am hoping. If I am repeating information already known, then excuse me. I am trying to catch up.

I am wondering how the prosecution or judge will get around 'ASPORTATION"
required for Kidnapping to be charged.I think the Nevada Supreme court has affirmed this principle.

[William Anthony]

I am wondering how the prosecution or judge will get around 'ASPORTATION"
required for Kidnapping to be charged.I think the Nevada Supreme court has affirmed this principle.

I wonder how the prosecution will get around the intent factor in the robbery charge. I think it was obvious that his intent was to recover his property, not that he intended to take the property of another. In fact, the statement that Mike stole his property, shows that the property was Simpson's and reinforced in his mind that someone stole his property. If there was not intent to rob, then there was not kidnapping. It is like when Clinton said, in my mind, when I answered that question, I had not had sexual relations with that woman. The mens rea is missing, imho.

[martin II]

I wonder how the prosecution will get around the intent factor in the robbery charge. I think it was obvious that his intent was to recover his property, not that he intended to take the property of another. In fact, the statement that Mike stole his property, shows that the property was Simpson's and reinforced in his mind that someone stole his property. If there was not intent to rob, then there was not kidnapping. It is like when Clinton said, in my mind, when I answered that question, I had not had sexual relations with that woman. The mens rea is missing, imho.

And oj is heard on the tape clearly saying " I ONLY WANT MY STUFF"

So how does one rob someone while telling them ' I only want me stuff"

Robbers usually say "give me YOUR stuff."
martin II

[socaldiva]

And oj is heard on the tape clearly saying " I ONLY WANT MY STUFF"

So how does one rob someone while telling them ' I only want me stuff"

Robbers usually say "give me YOUR stuff."
martin II

If a gun is involved, it doesn't matter what words you use ;)

"I only want me stuff" does sound like OJ though....

[William Anthony]

Every time a gun is involved does not make the act a robbery, or the person attempting to take back their property a robber.

[socaldiva]

AP Exclusive: Ex-manager says OJ Simpson confessed By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 41 minutes ago



LOS ANGELES - A memorabilia dealer who profited from O.J. Simpson for many years is the latest former crony to write a tell-all book, this one alleging a groggy Simpson, high on marijuana, confessed to killing his ex-wife after he was acquitted.



Mike Gilbert also claims he helped his former friend wiggle out of the murder charges by suggesting how to bloat his hands so they wouldn't fit the notorious bloody gloves.

Gilbert's book, "How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder: The Shocking Inside Story of Violence, Loyalty, Regret and Remorse" (Regnery Publishing, 232 pages, $27.95), is due in stores Monday. It was released to The Associated Press in advance.

He said Simpson had smoked pot, took a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of June 12, 1994. Simpson said he went to his ex-wife's condominium, but did not bring a knife with him. Simpson told him Nicole Brown Simpson had one in her hand when she opened the door.

In a soft mumble, Simpson told him: "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive."

"Nothing more needed to be said," Gilbert writes. "O.J. had confessed to me. There's no doubt in my mind."

Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death at the entrance to her condominium. The knife was never found.

Simpson's current lawyer Yale Galanter said none of Gilbert's claims are true and that Gilbert is "a delusional drug addict who needs money. He's fallen on very hard times. He is in trouble with the IRS."

"I've talked to O.J. about it," said Galanter, who refused to allow Simpson to comment directly because of his upcoming robbery trial in Las Vegas. "This stuff not only didn't occur but it's not factually supported by the evidence."

The name calling and accusations on both sides showed that deep wounds persist.

In a phone interview, Gilbert called Galanter "an ambulance chaser and an enabler and denier for O.J. I know. I used to do the same thing. I understand the game."

He acknowledged he has IRS problems which he says were caused by Simpson but said, "I could take a drug test and pass it. I highly doubt that O.J. could."

Gilbert is the second sports memorabilia dealer to write a Simpson book this year. Thomas Riccio, who arranged a Las Vegas memorabilia sale that led to Simpson's armed robbery arrest, penned "Busted" last month.

Simpson himself participated in the controversial book, "If I Did It," which he claimed was not a confession. It was withdrawn by the publisher and eventually released last year by the Goldman family to help satisfy a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment.

Gilbert said he continued to represent Simpson for another decade after the alleged confession, hawking items with his autograph, hiding the profits and helping Simpson shield his possessions so they could not be seized by the Goldman family.

Gilbert also claims that he counseled the jailed Simpson during his murder trial to stop taking his arthritis medicine so his hands would swell up and not fit the bloody gloves in court. He offers no proof Simpson followed his advice or that he was taking any medicine, but the drama that played out in court when the gloves didn't fit was central to Simpson's defense.

The prosecutors in Simpson's murder trial, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, could not immediately be reached for comment on Gilbert's claims.

Former Gilbert partner Bruce Fromong, who was involved in the Vegas incident, said Gilbert is known for spinning tall tales.

"Mike makes up a lot of great stories," said Fromong. "Mike Gilbert has a ton of skeletons in his closet. He's as dirty as anyone."

Gilbert said he broke with Simpson two years ago because he felt cheated, didn't approve of his lifestyle and was repulsed by "If I Did It." He writes that he was guided to do his own the book by dreams in which he saw the ghosts of his dead grandmother and of Nicole Brown Simpson.

He refers to himself in the book as a "Judas," and says he is betraying Simpson because he's ashamed of what he did and wants to soothe his conscience. He responded to Fromong's criticism by saying he's made mistakes and isn't trying to clean up his image with the book.

He writes that he was not alone in helping Simpson beat the murder charges, but "I hope to be the first to finally confess."

Gilbert said he funneled money from autograph signing appearances to Simpson under the table so the Goldman family could not get it. Gilbert said he paid Simpson 80 percent, kept 20 percent but had to pay taxes on the whole amount. He said Simpson repeatedly told him they'd settle up later.

But they never did and when pushed Simpson reminded him of the Goldman debt: "Hey, at least you don't owe $33.5 million."

"Yeah, I didn't kill anybody either," Gilbert replied. Simpson scowled.

He offers apologies to the dead Nicole Simpson, whom he said he never liked, and to the Goldman family.

"He offers an apology for money laundering?" said Goldman attorney David Cook. "I don't think we want the apology. I think we need the money. Send us a check, not an I'm sorry."

He said he plans to use the book as a treasure map to Simpson's hidden assets.

Gilbert, 53, was a childhood fan of Simpson who was thrilled when another client, football great Marcus Allen, introduced them and they began doing business together.

Gilbert wrote in his book that he was admitted to a world of privilege and he got caught up in a power trip in which he believed he was better than "ordinary people."

Gilbert blames himself and other Simpson friends for failing to act when they detected domestic violence in the Simpson marriage. But he says each time there was a fight between the couple or a call by Nicole to police it was dismissed as part of their obsession with each other or they pretended it didn't happen.

"O.J. mattered more," he said. "The fringe benefits that came with being one of O.J.'s friends mattered more — or at least we thought they did."

Gilbert wrote the book for many reasons. It wasn't just to make money or hurt Simpson.

"Nothing can hurt O.J.," he said in an interview. "He doesn't have the emotions we have."

In a chapter on the Las Vegas case, he acknowledges that Simpson was in search of memorabilia he believed Gilbert stole from him, including the suit he wore the day he was acquitted.

"I never sold the suit, not even when I was dead broke," he writes. "At least that's something small to be proud of."

But Gilbert does acknowledge that he unsuccessfully tried to sell the suit at one point — before he sold his book.

___

Associated Press Writer John Rogers contributed to this report.


Sorry for the long post, but I couldn't get the link to work (also sorry if this has been mentioned before & I missed it :o )

[socaldiva]

I haven't attended law school, but last I knew a gun used to procure something from someone was called robbery.

[William Anthony]

For those that have never attended law school, which would include me, and for those who have never bothered to read the law or take courses in the law, which would not include me, intent is an element of every crime. This negates the element of intent to procure someone else's property, imho. Ergo, no intent to rob. There was an attempt to regain property he thought, rightly or wrongly belonged to him. I am sure this statement will be used in the trial, if Simpson has a lawyer that is 1/2 as good as the lawyers on the dream team.

In a chapter on the Las Vegas case, he acknowledges that Simpson was in search of memorabilia he believed Gilbert stole from him, including the suit he wore the day he was acquitted.

"I never sold the suit, not even when I was dead broke," he writes. "At least that's something small to be proud of."

Although Gilbert never admits to theft, he admits Simpson believed property was stolen and that he stole it. Ergo, no intent to rob.

[socaldiva]

IIRC property that belonged to persons other than Simpson was obtained also.


Off to enjoy the day :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on intent by the California Court.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/98-505.pdf

I know that the California statue on robbery was posted and will look for it, but I do believe it included intent as an element of the crime. The prosecution must prove every element of a crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the crime.

[William Anthony]

Best wishes to all on the enjoyment of their day and I am happy to know that some are off to enjoy it.

[William Anthony]

I think it is clear that Simpson was only interested in obtaining the property he believed was his. The same may not be said for others that were with him.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link that will explain that intent is an element.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/98-505.pdf

[weezer]

I think it is clear that Simpson was only interested in obtaining the property he believed was his. The same may not be said for others that were with him.

I'm not so sure about that. IIRC, one of the statements orenthal made on the tape was something like, "Take it all. Take everything." That pretty much negates 'he was only after his stuff.' imo

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .Simpson's current lawyer Yale Galanter said none of Gilbert's claims are true and that Gilbert is "a delusional drug addict who needs money. He's fallen on very hard times. He is in trouble with the IRS."

whoa -- for a minute there I thought he was describing orenthal. . .:D

[martin II]

I'm not so sure about that. IIRC, one of the statements orenthal made on the tape was something like, "Take it all. Take everything." That pretty much negates 'he was only after his stuff.' imo

From your post we must have heard different tapes.I never heard oj make that statement. I am not sure what you mean when you say oj said' something like -----"

[William Anthony]

I'm not so sure about that. IIRC, one of the statements orenthal made on the tape was something like, "Take it all. Take everything." That pretty much negates 'he was only after his stuff.' imo

Do you know whether or not they had the memorabilia separated into piles of the celebrities? I think it is too early to jump to conclusions, since he may have been speaking of the pile containing his property, if he said that.

[SlowHandSam]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/oj.simpson.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A memorabilia dealer who profited from O.J. Simpson for many years is the latest former crony to write a tell-all book, this one alleging that a groggy Simpson, high on marijuana, confessed to killing his ex-wife after he was acquitted.

Former football star O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend.

Mike Gilbert also claims that he helped his former friend wiggle out of the murder charges by suggesting how to bloat his hands so they wouldn't fit the notorious bloody gloves.

Gilbert's book, "How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder: The Shocking Inside Story of Violence, Loyalty, Regret and Remorse," is due in stores Monday. It was released to The Associated Press in advance.

He said Simpson had smoked pot and taken a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his home in Los Angeles' Brentwood area weeks after his trial what happened the night of June 12, 1994.

Simpson said he went to his ex-wife's condominium but did not bring a knife with him. Simpson told him Nicole Brown Simpson had one in her hand when she opened the door.

In a soft mumble, Simpson told him: "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive."

"Nothing more needed to be said," Gilbert writes. "O.J. had confessed to me. There's no doubt in my mind."

Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death at the entrance to her condominium. The knife was never found.

Simpson's current lawyer Yale Galanter said that none of Gilbert's claims are true and that Gilbert is "a delusional drug addict who needs money. He's fallen on very hard times. He is in trouble with the IRS."

"I've talked to O.J. about it," said Galanter, who refused to allow Simpson to comment directly because of his upcoming robbery trial in Las Vegas, Nevada. "This stuff not only didn't occur, but it's not factually supported by the evidence."

The name-calling and accusations on both sides showed that deep wounds persist.

Gilbert, 53, called Galanter "an ambulance chaser and an enabler and denier for O.J. I know. I used to do the same thing. I understand the game."

He acknowledged that he has IRS problems, which he says were caused by Simpson, but said, "I could take a drug test and pass it. I highly doubt that O.J. could."

Gilbert is the second sports memorabilia dealer to write a Simpson book this year. Thomas Riccio, who arranged a Las Vegas memorabilia sale that led to Simpson's armed robbery arrest, penned "Busted" last month.

Simpson himself participated in the controversial book "If I Did It," which he claimed was not a confession. It was withdrawn by the publisher and eventually released last year by the Goldman family to help satisfy a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment.

Gilbert said he continued to represent Simpson for another decade after the alleged confession, hawking items with his autograph, hiding the profits and helping Simpson shield his possessions so they could not be seized by the Goldman family.

Gilbert also claims that he counseled the jailed Simpson during his murder trial to stop taking his arthritis medicine so his hands would swell up and not fit the bloody gloves in court. He offers no proof that Simpson followed his advice or that he was taking any medicine, but the drama that played out in court when the gloves didn't fit was central to Simpson's defense.

The prosecutors in Simpson's murder trial, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, could not be reached for comment on Gilbert's claims.

Former Gilbert partner Bruce Fromong, who was involved in the Las Vegas incident, said Gilbert is known for spinning tall tales.

"Mike makes up a lot of great stories," Fromong said. "Mike Gilbert has a ton of skeletons in his closet. He's as dirty as anyone."

Gilbert said he broke with Simpson two years ago because he felt cheated, didn't approve of his lifestyle and was repulsed by "If I Did It." He writes that he was guided to do his own the book by dreams in which he saw the ghosts of his dead grandmother and of Nicole Brown Simpson.

He refers to himself in the book as a Judas and says he is betraying Simpson because he's ashamed of what he did and wants to soothe his conscience. He responded to Fromong's criticism by saying he's made mistakes and isn't trying to clean up his image with the book.

He writes that he was not alone in helping Simpson beat the murder charges, but "I hope to be the first to finally confess."

Gilbert said he funneled money from autograph signing appearances to Simpson under the table so the Goldman family could not get it. Gilbert said he paid Simpson 80 percent and kept 20 percent but had to pay taxes on the whole amount. He said Simpson repeatedly told him they'd settle up later.

But they never did, and when pushed, Simpson reminded him of the Goldman debt: "Hey, at least you don't owe $33.5 million."

"Yeah, I didn't kill anybody either," Gilbert replied. Simpson scowled.

He offers apologies to the dead Nicole Simpson, whom he said he never liked, and to the Goldman family.

"He offers an apology for money laundering?" Goldman attorney David Cook asked. "I don't think we want the apology. I think we need the money. Send us a check, not an 'I'm sorry.' "

He said he plans to use the book as a treasure map to Simpson's hidden assets.



hmm, interesting.

[martin II]

Do you know whether or not they had the memorabilia separated into piles of the celebrities? I think it is too early to jump to conclusions, since he may have been speaking of the pile containing his property, if he said that.

OJ told one person that had picked up Fromongs cell to "give him his phone back"

[William Anthony]

hmm, interesting.

Yes, especially this part.

"Former Gilbert partner Bruce Fromong, who was involved in the Las Vegas incident, said Gilbert is known for spinning tall tales.

"Mike makes up a lot of great stories," Fromong said. "Mike Gilbert has a ton of skeletons in his closet. He's as dirty as anyone."

[William Anthony]

OJ told one person that had picked up Fromongs cell to "give him his phone back"

Sounds like he was intent on robbery to me and wanted to prevent anyone from calling the police, :). Sounds more like he believed he was retrieving his property and did not think the thieves would call LE to me. Sounds like he did not want to take anything that didn't belong to him to me.

[William Anthony]

I apologize, because it seems I posted the same link twice in regard to intent. This is the other one I intended to post.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jv83AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=california+law-intent+an+element+of+robbery&source=web&ots=Nkm58iopCR&sig=HCrcLjknR3HHy20yYWwk3bckOdI&hl=en#PPA59,M1

I think the paragraph numbered 3 in the first case explains the mens rea involved in a crime.

[weezer]

From your post we must have heard different tapes.I never heard oj make that statement. I am not sure what you mean when you say oj said' something like -----"

Really?

". . .O.J. SimpsonLAS VEGAS (AP) — An apparent audiotape of O.J. Simpson's standoff with men he accused of stealing his memorabilia begins with the ex-NFL star demanding, "Don't let nobody out of here.". . ."
http://origin-www.courttv.com/trials/oj-simpson/091707_ap.html

what audiotape did you hear?

[weezer]

*Snipped*Sounds like he was intent on robbery to me and wanted to prevent anyone from calling the police, :).

you are exactly right -- :eek:

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

you are exactly right -- :eek:

I am glad you agree that to allow someone to keep their cell phone, which some want to call robbery, is comical and flies in the face of reason in that the person could call the police to report the alleged robbery.

[William Anthony]

Least I forget. HAPPY MOTHERS DAY.:rose:

[socaldiva]

*Snipped*

whoa -- for a minute there I thought he was describing orenthal. . .:D

:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

They just had MF on Fox discussing Gilbert's book. Of course, MF found Gilbert credible and said he had talked with him. However, MF said, in trying to explain an obvious discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged confession, that, even though their was no knife missing from Nicole's condo, when Simpson allegedly told Gilbert had she not come to the door with a knife she would still be alive, there was an empty knife box in Simpson's home. MF said this was Simpson's way to blame others. The fact is that Gilbert's story does not conform to the evidence. Hence, either Simpson gave him false information or what the prosecution and Ito called disinformation or Gilbert is up to his usual, as stated by his associate, and spinning tales. Either way it proves nothing. They are going to discuss whether Gilbert has opened himself up to charges.

[weezer]

They just had MF on Fox discussing Gilbert's book. Of course, MF found Gilbert credible and said he had talked with him. However, MF said, in trying to explain an obvious discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged confession, that, even though their was no knife missing from Nicole's condo, when Simpson allegedly told Gilbert had she not come to the door with a knife she would still be alive, there was an empty knife box in Simpson's home. MF said this was Simpson's way to blame others. The fact is that Gilbert's story does not conform to the evidence. Hence, either Simpson gave him false information or what the prosecution and Ito called disinformation or Gilbert is up to his usual, as stated by his associate, and spinning tales. Either way it proves nothing. They are going to discuss whether Gilbert has opened himself up to charges.

one bad thing about pizzing off old friends, they know where all the skeletons are. I have a feeling orenthal better hang on. ;)

[William Anthony]

one bad thing about pizzing off old friends, they know where all the skeletons are. I have a feeling orenthal better hang on. ;)

One thing about this is that Simpson is protected by the concept of double jeopardy, which is another thing I have a problem with. Gilbert is not.

[William Anthony]

This is an interesting situation. How can Gilbert be charged with accessory to murder or conspiracy to murder or accessory after the fact, when Simpson has been found not guilty of the murders?

[SlowHandSam]

This is an interesting situation. How can Gilbert be charged with accessory to murder or conspiracy to murder or accessory after the fact, when Simpson has been found not guilty of the murders?

Is it "accessory to OJ Simpson" or "Conspirator with OJ Simpson"? I am guessing not. So even if OJ was found "not guilty" does not mean that others couldn't have participated (explicit or implicit) in that murder(s).

[tv]

This is an interesting situation. How can Gilbert be charged with accessory to murder or conspiracy to murder or accessory after the fact, when Simpson has been found not guilty of the murders?I know someone that is in prison for being an accessory to murder and the person that was tried for the actual murder was found not guilty.

[William Anthony]

I know someone that is in prison for being an accessory to murder and the person that was tried for the actual murder was found not guilty.

That is interesting. Do you have the name (citation) of the case? I would like to look at both cases.

[William Anthony]

Is it "accessory to OJ Simpson" or "Conspirator with OJ Simpson"? I am guessing not. So even if OJ was found "not guilty" does not mean that others couldn't have participated (explicit or implicit) in that murder(s).

I understand your point but in this case Gilbert claimed to have helped Simpson get away with murder. I can think of an obstruction to justice charge. I am not saying that he can't be charged with conspiracy-just making an observation. In my state,IIRC, there must an overt act in furtherance of the crime to constitute a conspiracy. How can you conspire with someone who has been found not guilty of the crime? Just questions I have.

[tv]

That is interesting. Do you have the name (citation) of the case? I would like to look at both cases.I don't have the name of it but I'll try to find out more about it if I can. The man tried for murder and found not guilty went on to commit another murder that he's now in prison for and the other man who was accused of helping plan the robbery that ended up with the victim being killed is still in prison for that crime.

[William Anthony]

I don't have the name of it but I'll try to find out more about it if I can. The man tried for murder and found not guilty went on to commit another murder that he's now in prison for and the other man who was accused of helping plan the robbery that ended up with the victim being killed is still in prison for that crime.

Laws vary from state to state. I do not know what constitutes conspiracy in California. I will look it up.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link I found on the crime of Conspiracy in California.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/8conspiracy.pdf

The fact that it is an incohhate crime means that, I guess, it is possible to say, since the person he conspired with was found not guilty, it does not excuse the conspirator for his part by doing an overt act in furtherance of the other party's endeavor to do the crime. If that makes sense? I wonder what it means, if the conspirator sold a person a gun with knowledge that the person he sold it to had an intent to kill another person with the gun, but the other person lost his nerve and never followed through. I did not read far enough in my link. It answers my questions.

[weezer]

Is it "accessory to OJ Simpson" or "Conspirator with OJ Simpson"? I am guessing not. So even if OJ was found "not guilty" does not mean that others couldn't have participated (explicit or implicit) in that murder(s).

which has always been my contention as to ac's role in the whole thing and the reason he plead the 5th. imo

[William Anthony]

which has always been my contention as to ac's role in the whole thing and the reason he plead the 5th. imo

You should not judge one way or another a person's guilt when they exercise their right to plead the 5th, unless of course, like in the case of MF, there is other evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the person is guilty. What evidence do you know of against AC?

[tv]

Laws vary from state to state. I do not know what constitutes conspiracy in California. I will look it up.Thank you, William, but it didn't happen in California. I'm an East Coastie. :)

[martin II]

which has always been my contention as to ac's role in the whole thing and the reason he plead the 5th. imo

Like what??

Darden gave AC good reason to take the 5th.

[tv]

Like what??

Darden gave AC good reason to take the 5th.At the very least he's guilty of harboring a fugitive.

[martin II]

At the very least he's guilty of harboring a fugitive.

nope

He drove the fugitive to le after a attempt to make a prayer at his ex's grave.
And talked to le in the process.
martin II

[SlowHandSam]

nope

He drove the fugitive to le after a attempt to make a prayer at his ex's grave.
And talked to le in the process.
martin II

So the "slow speed" chase was AC taking oj to LE ... for over an hour ... with passport, disguise and $8500 in cash.

Hmm.

[Kate Sachel]

nope

He drove the fugitive to le after a attempt to make a prayer at his ex's grave.
And talked to le in the process.
martin II

He did not drive the fugitive to Parker Center, which is where said fugitive was required to report to turn himself in.

It matters not if the fugitive was going to pray somewhere, the only place he should have been going was Parker Center to be booked on charges of murder.

In the end, AC Cowlings drove OJ Simpson to his home on Rockingham. That is not exactly what I would consider to be "to le". Law enforcement simply had to be there staking out his home because he was a fugitive.

Kate

[martin II]

So the "slow speed" chase was AC taking oj to LE ... for over an hour ... with passport, disguise and $8500 in cash.

Hmm.

ojs girlfriend said it was normal for oj to have $10,000 in his pocket as he did carry cash around in case he decided to purchase something.If he only had $8,500 then he was a little short that day.imo
martin ii

[martin II]

So the "slow speed" chase was AC taking oj to LE ... for over an hour ... with passport, disguise and $8500 in cash.

Hmm.

ps
i think during the conversation with DET Lang (the ride) it was agreed that AC would bring oj to his home and they would be waiting for him there and he did that.imo

[martin II]

So the "slow speed" chase was AC taking oj to LE ... for over an hour ... with passport, disguise and $8500 in cash.

Hmm.

I am not sure of the distance from the cemetary to ojs home but during the drive le knew where he was. In front of several police cars driving slowely down the highway talking to Lang.

[Kate Sachel]

ps
i think during the conversation with DET Lang (the ride) it was agreed that AC would bring oj to his home and they would be waiting for him there and he did that.imo

Regardless of what was agreed on during the chase, and regardless of whether law enforcement was aware of his location, OJ Simpson was considered a fugitive until the time he turned himself in.

Law enforcement was already at Rockingham staking out the residence prior to an agreement with AC that he would bring OJ there.

Kate

[weezer]

At the very least he's guilty of harboring a fugitive.

oh I believe he's guilty of much more than that. I believe that ac and arnelle both conspired to cover up for orenthal after the murders. Didn't Hank Goldberg write that ac's figerprint/handprint was found on the bronco?

[weezer]

ps
i think during the conversation with DET Lang (the ride) it was agreed that AC would bring oj to his home and they would be waiting for him there and he did that.imo

yeah - I bet Lange would like a re-do on that conversation -- :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William, but it didn't happen in California. I'm an East Coastie. :)

I think you are talking about the case you discussed. I am talking about how the law of California may be applied to Gilbert. As long as there are words, there will always be misunderstandings, imho.

[tv]

I think you are talking about the case you discussed. I am talking about how the law of California may be applied to Gilbert. As long as there are words, there will always be misunderstandings, imho.Oops. :)

[tv]

oh I believe he's guilty of much more than that. I believe that ac and arnelle both conspired to cover up for orenthal after the murders. Didn't Hank Goldberg write that ac's figerprint/handprint was found on the bronco?IIRC, Jennifer Peace said that AC told her that the knife sleeps with the fishes. IMO, he knows exactly what happened.

[tv]

nope

He drove the fugitive to le after a attempt to make a prayer at his ex's grave.
And talked to le in the process.
martin IIAnd "talked" to LE in the process? If it had been you or I we would have been pulled from the car on the side of the freeway and spread eagle on the ground with guns drawn...just more special treatment for OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

And "talked" to LE in the process? If it had been you or I we would have been pulled from the car on the side of the freeway and spread eagle on the ground with guns drawn...just more special treatment for OJ Simpson.

I don't know about you but if it had been me they would pulled up next to my car and started shooting.

I think lang may not have had confidence that the squard cops would handle the situation properly and problems may have occured if the cops had stopped oj.

But as oj was officially a fugutive, Lang a lead detective decided that he wanted AC to drive oj to his house and meet him there which was in fact turning himself in to le. It did not matter where he turned himself in as long as it was to a lapd officer.He could have done it on the highway but lang decided against that.imo

[tv]

I don't know about you but if it had been me they would pulled up next to my car and started shooting.

I think lang may not have had confidence that the squard cops would handle the situation properly and problems may have occured if the cops had stopped oj.

But as oj was officially a fugutive, Lang a lead detective decided that he wanted AC to drive oj to his house and meet him there which was in fact turning himself in to le. It did not matter where he turned himself in as long as it was to a lapd officer.He could have done it on the highway but lang decided against that.imoI'm glad we agree that OJ Simpson was being given special treatment because he was OJ.

[martin II]

IIRC, Jennifer Peace said that AC told her that the knife sleeps with the fishes. IMO, he knows exactly what happened.

I believe she was the woman scorned by ac. Or dumped would be a better word. However the DA ignored her comments and never searched that park that Mario indicated was where the knife was tossed. Maby understanding her motive.But why would AC tell her this?

[martin II]

I'm glad we agree that OJ Simpson was being given special treatment because he was OJ.

I think Lang did not want the trigger happy cops following to get out of control looking for fame. So he difused the situation. I don't think you are suggesting that they should have rammed the car to a stop.Remember, the world was watching on tv and if the cops had done their normal thing it may not have turned out as it did in front of the public. So lang had to be careful.imo

[martin II]

yeah - I bet Lange would like a re-do on that conversation -- :tongue:

why?

[tv]

I think Lang did not want the trigger happy cops following to get out of control looking for fame. So he difused the situation. I don't think you are suggesting that they should have rammed the car to a stop.Remember, the world was watching on tv and if the cops had done their normal thing it may not have turned out as it did in front of the public. So lang had to be careful.imoThey could have blocked the roadway like they do with ordinary citizens. I don't recall seeing any trigger-happy cops during this situation.

[martin II]

They could have blocked the roadway like they do with ordinary citizens. I don't recall seeing any trigger-happy cops during this situation.

Lang could have ordered a Rodney King type of STOP.But must have decided against it knowing how cops botched that stop.

[William Anthony]

Lang could have ordered a Rodney King type of STOP.But must have decided against it knowing how cops botched that stop.

From Cali to Phili.

[SlowHandSam]

Lang could have ordered a Rodney King type of STOP.But must have decided against it knowing how cops botched that stop.

had AC and oj gone on a 110-115 mph chase with CHP and LAPD, then refused to obey orders, then charge at one of the officers ... perhaps it would have been a "Rodney King" style stop. But since that wasn't the case ... just oj and AC evading police, with disguise, passport and $8500 cash in hand, I think LAPD handled it as best they could with considerations to the certain parts of the publics view into these types of stops.

oj was to turn himself into police some 2.5 hours earlier. He chose to not do that but instead evade police with his good ole boy friend AC. In doing do, he became a fugitive and, imho, AC became complicit in that act.

It's unreasonable to compare the two stops, imo. They were nothing of the like. One was a career criminal evading police. The other an alleged murderer evading police. Actually, they are fairly similar ... evasion.

[SlowHandSam]

From Cali to Phili.

All reports from the Philly incident indicate it had absolutely nothing to do with race but with three thugs who were involved in serious criminal activity.

It's not always about race.

[William Anthony]

All reports from the Philly incident indicate it had absolutely nothing to do with race but with three thugs who were involved in serious criminal activity.

It's not always about race.

You seem to rush to judgment. I did not say it was about race. Although I will admit, that seems to be everyone's initial impression, as evidenced by your post.
I was talking about suspects at some point seeming to be subdued but the police appear (pun intended) to continue to use excessive force. The fact that race may be everyone's initial reaction only suggests that America has not yet healed, which is why some want to discount the criminal verdict and say that 9/10 of the blacks think Simpson is guilty. I still wonder how the word guilty got in the title of the other thread, since the article said that 9/10 believe he was somehow involved. I would go one better and say that 10/10 blacks feel that he was in someway involved, since he was involved in the trial, smile.

[tv]

You seem to rush to judgment. I did not say it was about race. Although I will admit, that seems to be everyone's initial impression, as evidenced by your post.
I was talking about suspects at some point seeming to be subdued but the police appear (pun intended) to continue to use excessive force. The fact that race may be everyone's initial reaction only suggests that America has not yet healed, which is why some want to discount the criminal verdict and say that 9/10 of the blacks think Simpson is guilty. I still wonder how the word guilty got in the title of the other thread, since the article said that 9/10 believe he was somehow involved. I would go one better and say that 10/10 blacks feel that he was in someway involved, since he was involved in the trial, smile.Word games. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Word games. :rolleyes:

Why, whatever do you mean? If you are talking about the beatings I meant excessive force. If you are talking about the thread, the inclusion (pun intended) of the word guilty has been a source of constant bewilderment for me.

[William Anthony]

had AC and oj gone on a 110-115 mph chase with CHP and LAPD, then refused to obey orders, then charge at one of the officers ... perhaps it would have been a "Rodney King" style stop. But since that wasn't the case ... just oj and AC evading police, with disguise, passport and $8500 cash in hand, I think LAPD handled it as best they could with considerations to the certain parts of the publics view into these types of stops.

oj was to turn himself into police some 2.5 hours earlier. He chose to not do that but instead evade police with his good ole boy friend AC. In doing do, he became a fugitive and, imho, AC became complicit in that act.

It's unreasonable to compare the two stops, imo. They were nothing of the like. One was a career criminal evading police. The other an alleged murderer evading police. Actually, they are fairly similar ... evasion.

Correct me If I am wrong. Is it the job of the police to CATCH and arrest suspects? Why would we need police, if everyone who did or was suspected of doing a crime turned themselves in? How would they know they were suspects, if not for the police? Are the police mandated to use excessive force when suspects evade them? Why do they not use excessive force on all suspects that evade them, if evasion mandates the use of excessive force? Although I have said these things in a joking way, they are problematic. The police must be realistically held accountable for the use of excessive force, because those who they try to arrest are simply suspects until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reason to believe that you are a criminal and how dare you not stop when we tell you to (which is not an excuse for the evaders), so we will beat you unmercifully.

[SlowHandSam]

Correct me If I am wrong. Is it the job of the police to CATCH and arrest suspects? Why would we need police, if everyone who did or was suspected of doing a crime turned themselves in? How would they know they were suspects, if not for the police? Are the police mandated to use excessive force when suspects evade them? Why do they not use excessive force on all suspects that evade them, if evasion mandates the use of excessive force? Although I have said these things in a joking way, they are problematic. The police must be realistically held accountable for the use of excessive force, because those who they try to arrest are simply suspects until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reason to believe that you are a criminal and how dare you not stop when we tell you to (which is not an excuse for the evaders), so we will beat you unmercifully.

this is off topic so I choose to not answer you.

[William Anthony]

this is off topic so I choose to not answer you.

As far as the off topic is concerned, you are correct since this is about O.J. in the news again. I did some quick research and it appears that the off topic conversation began with the mention of AC in post # 1927. I would be happy to copy and paste them on the thread, Issues in the criminal trial, if that is your only reason for not answering, or on the 9/10 thread since it involves public reaction to police actions. I think that you are correct and the discussion would be more relevant on either of those threads. However, if you choose not to answer the questions on whichever thread they are posted, then it would be a waste of time for me to post them. However, if other posters want to discuss the topic, I will cut and paste them to one of the above mentioned threads. Thanks.

[tv]

Why, whatever do you mean? If you are talking about the beatings I meant excessive force. If you are talking about the thread, the inclusion (pun intended) of the word guilty has been a source of constant bewilderment for me.I'll tell you exactly what I mean. I'd be happy to remove the word guilty and replace it with "killed Ron and Nicole" but it's not within my power. For you to say that involved in the title means anything other than participation in the killings is playing word games. That's another thread so this is off-topic.

[William Anthony]

I'll tell you exactly what I mean. I'd be happy to remove the word guilty and replace it with "killed Ron and Nicole" but it's not within my power. For you to say that involved in the title means anything other than participation in the killings is playing word games. That's another thread so this is off-topic.

That makes three of us in agreement and I would only point out and refer you to my post directly preceding your last one. I would only add that involved in as so many of us are with the trials is not the same as saying we participated in (pun intended) them (pun intended). It simply means we have an emotional involvement although we did not participate. I think that Simpson had an emotional involvement. One verdict said there was not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated, while the other says he most likely participated. Just needed to clarify and am willing to stay on topic.

[tv]

That makes three of us in agreement and I would only point out and refer you to my post directly preceding your last one. I would only add that involved in as so many of us are with the trials is not the same as saying we participated in (pun intended) them (pun intended). It simply means we have an emotional involvement although we did not participate. I think that Simpson had an emotional involvement. One verdict said there was not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated, while the other says he most likely participated. Just needed to clarify and am willing to stay on topic.We're not talking about legal verdicts; we're talking about personal opinion. No one thinks it refers to emotional involvement. Come on, William.

[William Anthony]

We're not talking about legal verdicts; we're talking about personal opinion. No one thinks it refers to emotional involvement. Come on, William.

I see you want to continue the conversation and I suggest that we cut and paste. Which thread do you think? I was talking about the difference in the meaning of two words. Yes, they can mean the same but not necessarily. As long as there are words, there will be different valid interpretations. :)

[tv]

I see you want to continue the conversation and I suggest that we cut and paste. Which thread do you think? I was talking about the difference in the meaning of two words. Yes, they can mean the same but not necessarily. As long as there are words, there will be different valid interpretations. :) I should be used to your word games by now and not take up the cause everytime. It only causes a distraction from talking about OJ Simpson and his court cases. Thank you for offering to continue the conversation but I think we've talked it out. :)

[William Anthony]

I should be used to your word games by now and not take up the cause everytime. It only causes a distraction from talking about OJ Simpson and his court cases. Thank you for offering to continue the conversation but I think we've talked it out. :)

Again, I was not the one to take the conversation off topic. I stay on topic as much as possible. I do believe most of us stray from time to time. I agree that we have talked it out and will not try to out talk you. :)

[tv]

Again, I was not the one to take the conversation off topic. I stay on topic as much as possible. I do believe most of us stray from time to time. I agree that we have talked it out and will not try to out talk you. :):beer: A free rootbeer for you.

[William Anthony]

The Factor is talking about Gilbert and whether he can be charged as an accessory to murder.

[tv]

The Factor is talking about Gilbert and whether he can be charged as an accessory to murder.Yes, I'm watching with interest.

[SlowHandSam]

As far as the off topic is concerned, you are correct since this is about O.J. in the news again. I did some quick research and it appears that the off topic conversation began with the mention of AC in post # 1927. I would be happy to copy and paste them on the thread, Issues in the criminal trial, if that is your only reason for not answering, or on the 9/10 thread since it involves public reaction to police actions. I think that you are correct and the discussion would be more relevant on either of those threads. However, if you choose not to answer the questions on whichever thread they are posted, then it would be a waste of time for me to post them. However, if other posters want to discuss the topic, I will cut and paste them to one of the above mentioned threads. Thanks.

no, my issue is that your comments had nothing to do with oj, thus my reason for saying I would not reply due to off topic. Thanks. The topic about oj in the car attempting to evade while being a fugitive was a "in the news" topic as it was broadcast live. If we want to discuss the topic of how it directly relates to oj, then I'm all for it - but when it derails to discuss other things, that's when I disagree.

[William Anthony]

no, my issue is that your comments had nothing to do with oj, thus my reason for saying I would not reply due to off topic. Thanks. The topic about oj in the car attempting to evade while being a fugitive was a "in the news" topic as it was broadcast live. If we want to discuss the topic of how it directly relates to oj, then I'm all for it - but when it derails to discuss other things, that's when I disagree.

Let me just say that I admire your loyalty to those you think are on your side. However, you left off a word from the title of this thread. The word you left off is, again. The proper title is O.J. In The News Again. I am not blaming anyone for going off topic, as I say that we all stray and pointed to the post that started the off topic discussion. I do grow weary of your constant and improper accusations against me. As I told you last night, if you are going to continue in this fashion, then :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: .

[William Anthony]

Yes, I'm watching with interest.

Me too. Great minds think alike.

[William Anthony]

Yes, I'm watching with interest.

Well, that was a waste of time and brain power, :).

[tv]

Well, that was a waste of time and brain power, :).

I must have missed it. I left the room for a couple of seconds. :mad:

[martin II]

All reports from the Philly incident indicate it had absolutely nothing to do with race but with three thugs who were involved in serious criminal activity.

It's not always about race.


what did the reports from PHILLY say? what happened?

[weezer]

As far as the off topic is concerned, you are correct since this is about O.J. in the news again. I did some quick research and it appears that the off topic conversation began with the mention of AC in post # 1927. I would be happy to copy and paste them on the thread, Issues in the criminal trial, if that is your only reason for not answering, or on the 9/10 thread since it involves public reaction to police actions. I think that you are correct and the discussion would be more relevant on either of those threads. However, if you choose not to answer the questions on whichever thread they are posted, then it would be a waste of time for me to post them. However, if other posters want to discuss the topic, I will cut and paste them to one of the above mentioned threads. Thanks.

you know, attitude, disrepect and rudeness won't serve you well. :no:

[weezer]

what did the reports from PHILLY say? what happened?

orenthal wasn't there. ;)

[weezer]

I must have missed it. I left the room for a couple of seconds. :mad:

some very interesting stuff -- this guy sounds awfully credible. scroll down for video

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/page/4/

[tv]

some very interesting stuff -- this guy sounds awfully credible. scroll down for video

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/page/4/Thanks for posting that link. I think it's interesting that he's the only person as far as I know that's ever said Nicole came to the door with a knife. That makes it more convincing to me. Not only can I see OJ Simpson enraged because she would dare confront him but it also gives him a way to blame the victim.

[William Anthony]

you know, attitude, disrepect and rudeness won't serve you well. :no:

Your accusations are hereby denied.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Thanks for posting that link. I think it's interesting that he's the only person as far as I know that's ever said Nicole came to the door with a knife. That makes it more convincing to me. Not only can I see OJ Simpson enraged because she would dare confront him but it also gives him a way to blame the victim.

Imho, it does not follow reason or the evidence. No knife was missing from Nicole's condo, according to MF. However, he is a convicted perjurer. A person found liable for wrongful death and battery, an admitted money launderer and conspirator to murders, and a convicted perjurer, who are we to believe?

[tv]

Imho, it does not follow reason or the evidence. No knife was missing from Nicole's condo, according to MF. However, he is a convicted perjurer. A person found liable for wrongful death and battery, an admitted money launderer and conspirator to murders, and a convicted perjurer, who are we to believe?Not sure why you dragged Mark Fuhrman into this...but anyway, I doubt if anyone knows exactly how many or which knives another person has. I have some in a knife block and also other miscellaneous knives I've accumulated over the years in a drawer. I doubt if even I would know if one was missing.

[William Anthony]

Not sure why you dragged Mark Fuhrman into this...but anyway, I doubt if anyone knows exactly how many or which knives another person has. I have some in a knife block and also other miscellaneous knives I've accumulated over the years in a drawer. I doubt if even I would know if one was missing.

I did not drag MF in to this. IIRC, it was Fox tv that he appeared on and made the statement that none of the knives were missing from Nicole's condo. He said the was an empty knife box found in Simpson's home. He also said it was Simpson's way of blaming the victim. I wondered the same thing about his statement pertaining to the knives. How would anyone be able to determine that no knife was missing from the home of person who he allegedly had never visited in that home? Did he have some intimate knowledge of how many knives were in her home? Did he have another slip of the tongue? Why would he try to conceal the fact that a knife was missing from her home, if one was?

[tv]

I did not drag MF in to this. IIRC, it was Fox tv that he appeared on and made the statement that none of the knives were missing from Nicole's condo. He said the was an empty knife box found in Simpson's home. He also said it was Simpson's way of blaming the victim. I wondered the same thing about his statement pertaining to the knives. How would anyone be able to determine that no knife was missing from the home of person who he allegedly had never visited in that home? Did he have some intimate knowledge of how many knives were in her home? Did he have another slip of the tongue? Why would he try to conceal the fact that a knife was missing from her home, if one was?He may have meant no knives were missing from the knife block.

[William Anthony]

He may have meant no knives were missing from the knife block.

He may have meant no knives were missing from the block, the drawers, under the beds, pillows, closet, attic or basement or anywhere else in the home. I know what he said, which would include all of the above.

[tv]

He may have meant no knives were missing from the block, the drawers, under the beds, pillows, closet, attic or basement or anywhere else in the home. I know what he said, which would include all of the above.When you want to take attention off of what Mike Gilbert said suddenly you believe Mark Fuhrman. This isn't about Mark Fuhrman it's about MG's statement that Nicole came to the door with a knife. I find it very plausible.

[William Anthony]

When you want to take attention off of what Mike Gilbert said suddenly you believe Mark Fuhrman. This isn't about Mark Fuhrman it's about MG's statement that Nicole came to the door with a knife. I find it very plausible.

I pay attention because MF suffers from diarrhea of the mouth and a tongue that slips-what a mess that would be:). It does not conform to the evidence. I do not want to take the focus of anyone. There is Gilbert's statement, Simpson's denial, via his attorney and MF's statement about the evidence. It would seem that, if you believe MF, it supports Simpson. If you disbelieve MF, then you must ask why he would say no knife was missing? If you believe Gilbert, then you must ask why MF said no knife was missing. At this point, I do not know who to believe. It would have been better If MF had drank something to stop the diarrhea, imho.

[martin II]

you know, attitude, disrepect and rudeness won't serve you well. :no:


I don't find any of what you describe in williams post. So i have become
more and more puzzled as to why you make these kind negative comments to him. Actually, it is your post above, that i take as rude and uncalled for.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I did not drag MF in to this. IIRC, it was Fox tv that he appeared on and made the statement that none of the knives were missing from Nicole's condo. He said the was an empty knife box found in Simpson's home. He also said it was Simpson's way of blaming the victim. I wondered the same thing about his statement pertaining to the knives. How would anyone be able to determine that no knife was missing from the home of person who he allegedly had never visited in that home? Did he have some intimate knowledge of how many knives were in her home? Did he have another slip of the tongue? Why would he try to conceal the fact that a knife was missing from her home, if one was?

During the Geraldo FOX interview, Vanhattar & Lang both said Furhman has been talking abut this kinfe box and they don't know why because that box had nothing to do with the case.imo

[weezer]

Imho, it does not follow reason or the evidence. No knife was missing from Nicole's condo, according to MF. However, he is a convicted perjurer. A person found liable for wrongful death and battery, an admitted money launderer and conspirator to murders, and a convicted perjurer, who are we to believe?

okay -- so Fuhrman is the convicted perjurer -- I'm thinking you were referring to orenthal with all of the other adjectives. :D

[William Anthony]

I don't find any of what you describe in williams post. So i have become
more and more puzzled as to why you make these kind negative comments to him. Actually, it is your post above, that i take as rude and uncalled for.imo
martin II

Thank you very much martin. I have obtained some information that might explain a lot. I may be able to share it with you later.

[weezer]

During the Geraldo FOX interview, Vanhattar & Lang both said Furhman has been talking abut this kinfe box and they don't know why because that box had nothing to do with the case.imo

you have to admit that the empty knife box in orenthal's bathroom AND his ex-wife and Ron Goldman laying butchered 5 minutes away does make for interesting speculation.

[weezer]

When you want to take attention off of what Mike Gilbert said suddenly you believe Mark Fuhrman. This isn't about Mark Fuhrman it's about MG's statement that Nicole came to the door with a knife. I find it very plausible.

I think Nicole with a knife is very plausible -- especially since a knife was found laying on the kitchen counter.

[William Anthony]

okay -- so Fuhrman is the convicted perjurer -- I'm thinking you were referring to orenthal with all of the other adjectives. :D

That thinking would be wrong.

[William Anthony]

I think Nicole with a knife is very plausible -- especially since a knife was found laying on the kitchen counter.

Without any blood?

[William Anthony]

you have to admit that the empty knife box in orenthal's bathroom AND his ex-wife and Ron Goldman laying butchered 5 minutes away does make for interesting speculation.

Some speculated Evil K. could jump the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. That was an interesting a speculation as this one, imho.

[weezer]

That thinking would be wrong.

then I'm going to believe the perjurer --

[weezer]

Without any blood?

what blood? all that was said was that she came to the door with a knife. nothing was said about the knife being used. he didn't say which door -- it could have been the back door.

[William Anthony]

then I'm going to believe the perjurer --

No puzzle.

[weezer]

Some speculated Evil K. could jump the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. That was an interesting a speculation as this one, imho.

yep -- some did. not sure what that has to do with MG's statements but okay. . . .

[weezer]

No puzzle.

so you're going to believe "A person found liable for wrongful death and battery, an admitted money launderer and conspirator to murders,. . .?" LOL

[William Anthony]

yep -- some did. not sure what that has to do with MG's statements but okay. . . .

It has to do with speculating and reasonable speculations on the statements/comments made about the knife.

[William Anthony]

so you're going to believe "A person found liable for wrongful death and battery, an admitted money launderer and conspirator to murders,. . .?" LOL

I posted, I do not know who to believe.

[weezer]

oh dear --

EXCLUSIVE: OJ's GIRLFRIEND RUN OVER
O.J. Simpson’s girlfriend Christie Prody has been hospitalized after being hit by a car, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Prody, 32, was airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center, where she remains in the critical care unit with two broken legs.

According to police sources, at 4:40 a.m on May 10, Prody’s car broke down on Miami’s Don Shula Expressway.

She attempted to walk for help and was struck by a car.

Prody had been hospitalized on Feb. 11 with severe brain injuries after collapsing at a gas station.

She was taken to intensive care with doctors worried she would need brain surgery. But she recovered and returned to her life with Simpson at his Miami home.

A Florida Highway Patrol spokesman told the ENQUIRER that no one was arrested in the latest incident.

[William Anthony]

oh dear --

EXCLUSIVE: OJ's GIRLFRIEND RUN OVER
O.J. Simpson’s girlfriend Christie Prody has been hospitalized after being hit by a car, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Prody, 32, was airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center, where she remains in the critical care unit with two broken legs.

According to police sources, at 4:40 a.m on May 10, Prody’s car broke down on Miami’s Don Shula Expressway.

She attempted to walk for help and was struck by a car.

Prody had been hospitalized on Feb. 11 with severe brain injuries after collapsing at a gas station.

She was taken to intensive care with doctors worried she would need brain surgery. But she recovered and returned to her life with Simpson at his Miami home.

A Florida Highway Patrol spokesman told the ENQUIRER that no one was arrested in the latest incident.

Since no one was arrested, I guess its an accident at this point.

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson's Girlfriend Suffers Two Broken Legs
Associated Press
7:17 PM EDT, May 14, 2008
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: MIAMI -- A highway patrol official says O.J. Simpson's girlfriend has been seriously injured in a car accident in Miami.

Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Pat Santangelo says Christie Prody was injured early Saturday morning after pulling over to an expressway emergency lane because she had two flat tires.

When the 32-year-old got out and walked around the car, Santangelo says she was hit by another car. Her head and arms went through that car's windshield.

She was airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center at Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital where Santangelo says she was still being treated Wednesday for broken legs.

Santangelo says Prody was cited for the accident. Troopers found an empty bottle of alcohol in her car but could not say if Prody was intoxicated.