Othellean Syndrome

[Big Ben]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?

[socaldiva]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:

[tv]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?The answer to that is no. You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama. He's simply a thug with money.

Race was only made an issue in the criminal trial because that was the only way to defend OJ Simpson with any hope of success. Celebrity and class issues were much more relevant to the murders and subsequent trial.

[Big Ben]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:

Why this great fascination with everything Simpson? A star well past his shining glory. How did he deserve 12 months of hour by hour coverage?
Spector didn't! McVeigh didn't! Blake didn't! Shatner didn't! Even Osama didn't. Only O.J., and that is a fascinating observation to people around the world, a society preoccupied with one man.

It's almost like OJ gives America that needed boost to get back in the fight when facing a losing battle. "If we can't win here, pull out OJ. If we can't win there, pull out OJ."


I think that our shyness prevents us from examining the reality that it is this subliminal fascination with race that has brought us to this point.

[Big Ben]

You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama.

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[tv]

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.The only time I even think about OJ Simpson being black is when someone like you mentions it. This case is about a man, who happens to be a celebrity, becoming enraged enough to kill his ex-wife and her friend while his children slept close by.

Believe it or not, white people don't get up every morning thinking of how they can frame an innocent black person for a crime they didn't commit. OJ Simpson isn't the only person, black or white, to gain attention in this way.

OJ Simpson was once a beloved athlete and celebrity. We felt we knew him personally due to his charismatic personality and his appearances in movies and commericials. McVeigh was a reviled person, Spector is weird, Osama is an evil terrorist. OJ Simpson was one of us, a beloved and talented icon at one time in this country. I'm sorry to tell you that I have no subliminal fascination with race. I believe you are the one that is fixated on race.

Shatner? As in William Shatner? Am I missing something?:confused:

[tv]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:It doesn't. It's just another attempt at blaming others for the misfortune that OJ Simpson has brought to his own life and the lives of so many around him.

Wasn't a race thread removed from this board some time before I joined? If that's the case I think I'll shut up now. :chicken: :D

[Nickclone]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

[weezer]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

oh my -- :eek:

[Bailey Boys]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

Wow! Don't think I'm in Kanasa no more..:eek:

[martin II]

The answer to that is no. You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama. He's simply a thug with money.

Race was only made an issue in the criminal trial because that was the only way to defend OJ Simpson with any hope of success. Celebrity and class issues were much more relevant to the murders and subsequent trial.

tv
i believe race became a issue for the Armerican public before Furhman and the tapes.The tapes just added to the issue of race for some.

I point again to the cnn polls BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED which showed about 85% of whites believed he was guilty.
This belief came from someplace other than trial testimony/evidence.
Why was this?

PS. The Phil Spector case was just as horrible of death for that woman as the nicole's murder. Wonder why that case did not receive the 24/7 coverage that oj's case did by the media? Now His jury seems to be deadlocked and there may be a mistrial. Wonder why the media has decided from the beginning that this case did not warrant the same coverage as oj?

There must be a reason. right?

martin II

[martin II]

It doesn't. It's just another attempt at blaming others for the misfortune that OJ Simpson has brought to his own life and the lives of so many around him.

Wasn't a race thread removed from this board some time before I joined? If that's the case I think I'll shut up now. :chicken: :D

tv
there was a thread called something like "RACE IN THE CJS" it was set up because race was discussed on other threads. It stayed up for some time but some posters complained about it and the moderator deleted it for some reason. It seems that some decided that race was not a problem in the cjs.

imo

martin II

[martin II]

TV

Here is a comment on the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html

Many white people believed: "Look, we're going to show you that we are trusting, and we have reached a high plateau in race relations. We're going to treat O.J. like we treat any other white person in America. If he's guilty, we're going to send him to jail; if he's innocent, we'll let him go." So he was the ideal person to bring out these contrasting viewpoints, but it all broke down.

Broke down how?

Well, it broke down because O.J. refused to follow suit, and black America refused to follow the script, and white America then saw that all bets were off.

O.J. refused to follow through because he claimed his blackness again in a way that was troubling to many white Americans: "Wait a minute, O.J. You haven't talked about blackness in our circles for years, indeed for decades. You've never made us feel uncomfortable about the issue of race. All of a sudden now you're claiming your allegiance to black people. You're identifying publicly with black people."

Black people themselves had to squeeze and squirm. They had to re-inscribe O.J. into the black narrative. They had to baptize him again into the community; they had to accept him. Black people are typically, if you're willing to say you're sorry, always [willing to welcome you back] with open arms: "Come on back home, Michael Jackson. Come on back home, Kobe Bryant. Come on back home, O.J. Simpson."

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal.

[Big Ben]

The only time I even think about OJ Simpson being black is when someone like you mentions it.

TV, that's a good line, but very difficult to believe given the psychic images promulgated of Black males today in the media, albeit many don't help their own cause by doing something stupid to place themselves in the bullseye. I can't put my finger on one Black male celebrity immediately that has not become the preoccupation of the media for some act of negativity. I would think that the flood of negativity would have a subliminal effect on most people as to their predetermined disposition regarding Black males.

It appears that the media writers can't avoid the titillation of being voyeurs on Black male celebrities' activities. I admit, I am curious as to the imbalance. With all of the dysfunctional White folk in America, with an 8:1 ratio over Blacks, you mean to tell me that no one is worthy of excoriation by the media on a regular basis.

Shatner? As in William Shatner? Am I missing something?:confused:

TV, I mentioned Shatner because there was never any question raised as to other possible causes of his wife's death. What was offered, in the midst of Shatner's tears, was unquestionably accepted. Its my personal bias but he has always appeared to me to be an unusual character since his weight and nose ballooned over his post Star Trek years. I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol has played a significant role in his life, as it was lleged to have been in the life of his deceased wife.

Your argument that subliminal messaging doesn't impact you in the Simpson matter is also unbelievable. A great many people in this country could not give you the name of the guy who bombed the OKLA City Federal Bldg. And most couldn't tell you the name of his co-defendant who received the same sentence as the now deceased perpetrator received. But let the TV display a White Bronco cruising along! And guess what!

[Kate Sachel]

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.

The reality is that women lose their lives everyday in America as a result of men who become blindly enraged at the thought of losing them.

What I find embarassing is the fact that so many people routinely ignore that fact.

Kate

[weezer]

TV, that's a good line, but very difficult to believe given the psychic images promulgated of Black males today in the media, albeit many don't help their own cause by doing something stupid to place themselves in the bullseye. I can't put my finger on one Black male celebrity immediately that has not become the preoccupation of the media for some act of negativity. I would think that the flood of negativity would have a subliminal effect on most people as to their predetermined disposition regarding Black males.

It appears that the media writers can't avoid the titillation of being voyeurs on Black male celebrities' activities. I admit, I am curious as to the imbalance. With all of the dysfunctional White folk in America, with an 8:1 ratio over Blacks, you mean to tell me that no one is worthy of excoriation by the media on a regular basis.



TV, I mentioned Shatner because there was never any question raised as to other possible causes of his wife's death. What was offered, in the midst of Shatner's tears, was unquestionably accepted. Its my personal bias but he has always appeared to me to be an unusual character since his weight and nose ballooned over his post Star Trek years. I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol has played a significant role in his life, as it was lleged to have been in the life of his deceased wife.

Your argument that subliminal messaging doesn't impact you in the Simpson matter is also unbelievable. A great many people in this country could not give you the name of the guy who bombed the OKLA City Federal Bldg. And most couldn't tell you the name of his co-defendant who received the same sentence as the now deceased perpetrator received. But let the TV display a White Bronco cruising along! And guess what!

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:

[Kate Sachel]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

I suppose if anyone else's blood had been found at the scene they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had threatened her days prior to her death they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had beaten her previously they may have had other suspects.

If you don't believe that he was framed, then you believe that his blood was on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then you believe his blood was all over the crime scene, then you believe Ron and Nicole's blood was in his Bronco, then you believe that Nicole's blood was on his socks in his bedroom, then you believe that the "murder glove" was on his property, etc. And if you believe all of that then how can you tell me that you find OJ innocent?

Kate

[tv]

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:Yes, he needs to back away very slowly! He's managed to drag William Shatner into this. Amazing. :eek:

[tv]

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:He needs to back away very slowly. I don't know how he's made this leap from OJ Simpson to William Shatner. It's scary. I think it's all about taking the attention off of Simpson's guilt with nonsense.

[tv]

I suppose if anyone else's blood had been found at the scene they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had threatened her days prior to her death they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had beaten her previously they may have had other suspects.

If you don't believe that he was framed, then you believe that his blood was on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then you believe his blood was all over the crime scene, then you believe Ron and Nicole's blood was in his Bronco, then you believe that Nicole's blood was on his socks in his bedroom, then you believe that the "murder glove" was on his property, etc. And if you believe all of that then how can you tell me that you find OJ innocent?

KateI'm really interested in Nicklone's answer. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[Big Ben]

The reality is that women lose their lives everyday in America as a result of men who become blindly enraged at the thought of losing them.

What I find embarassing is the fact that so many people routinely ignore that fact.

Kate

You are absolutely right, Kate, except that in this case, strangely, there is so much contradictory evidence that was surrepticiously concealed from the jury and now you, the general public. That's the problem that I have with this case versus other similiar cases for which you speak. This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

[Kate Sachel]

You are absolutely right, Kate, except that in this case, strangely, there is so much contradictory evidence that was surrepticiously concealed from the jury and now you, the general public. That's the problem that I have with this case versus other similiar cases for which you speak. This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate

[Heyes]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate


Yup I'm with TVdinner, He's just a thug with money!
AND....... Why do these posters assume that all of us that believe this thug needs to be locked up are white? Dude needs a reality check!

[Big Ben]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate

If the issue of suppressed and concealed evidence were not involved, I don't think that you would have the perception of racial animus as your apparent sense of paranoia appears to suggest. The fact that you have concluded, with very sketchy evidence, that racial hatred is a motive here, appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend what has possibly been orchestrated intentionally to bring you to such conclusions relative to this OJ matter.

My thread was entitled "Othellean Syndrome" and I believe, not unlike Dominic Dunne, in his Vanity Fair article, that this whole affair has the appearance of a Shakespearean fictional plot. That is, however, about as much as we do mutually agree upon, but nevertheless, it is a start.

I'm certainly not blinded by a perception that a Black man has been wrongly accused. Nor do I have any reservation about the fact that Black men, as well as White, are involved in domestic abuse. For me, it would be a simple matter of fact, if so much of the crucial evidence was not in conflict with itself. However, it so happens that it is, and that makes your leap to conclusions based upon non-related events ever more troubling when examining the psychological well being of basic logic in greater Americana, today.

[socaldiva]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate


I couldn't agree with you more :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

Hopefully this thread will sink down to the bottom soon & then disappear....

[WarmNCozy]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?

The plot in Shakespeare's play, Othello, does not resemble "The Trial of the Century" in my opinion. OJ and Nicole were finished with each other romantically. Othello's actions were predicated by the tormenting by his so called friend about her loyalty and virtue.

[WarmNCozy]

Why this great fascination with everything Simpson? A star well past his shining glory. How did he deserve 12 months of hour by hour coverage?
Spector didn't! McVeigh didn't! Blake didn't! Shatner didn't! Even Osama didn't. Only O.J., and that is a fascinating observation to people around the world, a society preoccupied with one man.

It's almost like OJ gives America that needed boost to get back in the fight when facing a losing battle. "If we can't win here, pull out OJ. If we can't win there, pull out OJ."


I think that our shyness prevents us from examining the reality that it is this subliminal fascination with race that has brought us to this point.

Race? What has race to do with the fascination of OJ? Do you remember the OJ before all of this? First of all his rise from nothing to a super star on the football field, Hall of Fame, Heismann Trophy. Then the Hertz commercials, orange juice commercials, and playing a totally ridiculous character in the Naked Gun series! He always had a smile on his face before and after the trial. People liked him a lot! And a great many still do!

He must have gotten slammed in the head too many times on the football field to get involved in this latest fiasco!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
People liked him a lot! And a great many still do!



Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).

[WarmNCozy]

Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).

Simpson didn't kill anyone! Where do you get all that from?http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

[socaldiva]

Simpson didn't kill anyone! Where do you get all that from?http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

I think it was the murder scene, where Orenthal left his blood, glove, hat & fibers :rolleyes: :seeya:

[WarmNCozy]

I think it was the murder scene, where Orenthal left his blood, glove, hat & fibers :rolleyes: :seeya:

read http://www.wagnerandson.com

[Big Ben]

The plot in Shakespeare's play, Othello, does not resemble "The Trial of the Century" in my opinion. OJ and Nicole were finished with each other romantically. Othello's actions were predicated on the tormenting by his so called friend about her loyalty and virtue.

In other words, the fictional Moor's actions were predicated on the lies that were told, by Iago, taking advantage of his knowledge of the Moor's weakness, his fanatical infatuation with Desdemona, by implying that her fidelity towards Othello was no longer there.

It is a fact, that the argument that the (Iago) prosecution used, to befuddle the American public, was based upon an alleged fanatical infatuation on the part of Simpson with his wife Nicole, as the basis for the ferocity of this unbridled brutish and fatal attack.

The purveyors of deception knew the proclivity of the American insatiable appetite for voyeurism, as did Shakespeare the European, that the interest in what would normally be a mundane story is heightened by the cross cultural affiliation between two historically diametrically perceived races. In regard to America, it has deepened the curiosity, while reinforcing the apparent false indictment against O.J. Simpson.

This story, as told by the (Iagos) of the prosecution and abbetted by electronic media, would stand if not for certain salient observtions that appear to have been, intentionally concealed and suppressed by officers of the court and/or abscounded with by minions of deceit from O.J. Simpson's criminal file.

[WarmNCozy]

It is a fact, that the argument that the (Iago) prosecution used, to befuddle the American public, was based upon an alleged fanatical infatuation on the part of Simpson with his wife Nicole, as the basis for the ferocity of this unbridled brutish and fatal attack.



Oh, please! Do you not remember IBM's Motto -- KISS -- Keep it simple stupid!

Brutish and fatal attack????? The guy is innocent!

Why are you playing the race card?

[Heyes]

Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).


Well as you witnessed today at the press conference that lasted longer than the hearing. :rolleyes:
We got to see first hand the killers "fans".
There were chicken suits and wingnuts.
Need I say more?

[socaldiva]

Well as you witnessed today at the press conference that lasted longer than the hearing. :rolleyes:
We got to see first hand the killers "fans".
There were chicken suits and wingnuts.
Need I say more?

Yes, I saw some of his "fans". They seemed to be as unbalanced as he is. Big surprise. :D

[Heyes]

Yes, I saw some of his "fans". They seemed to be as unbalanced as he is. Big surprise. :D


Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
:D
The guy that was Yales little buddy,( give me five dude),
now that was hysterical. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[socaldiva]

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
:D
The guy that was Yales little buddy,( give me five dude),
now that was hysterical. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Yeah, the high five dude that was blowing bubbles with his gum seemed to be missing a few teeth as well. What a fanbase :D

Did anyone else see Galanter blow a fuse last night with Greta? He's getting to be just as arrogant & nasty as Orenthal. He actually said "Is there any human being on this planet that doesn't know I'm OJ's lawyer"?

[Big Ben]

Oh, please! Do you not remember IBM's Motto -- KISS -- Keep it simple stupid!

Brutish and fatal attack????? The guy is innocent!

Why are you playing the race card?

What race card are you speaking of? I need to better understand your pressumption. I certainly have not intended to disturb anyone's delicate sensitivity relative to race, but to ignore the possibility that it was a factor in promulgating this judicial chirade would, in my opinion, be unrealistic.

I started this thread to hopefully explore deeper into this convoluted preoccupation that has even the most powerful media institutions, probably in the world, so preoccupied with this man, OJ Simpson, to the extent that its' coverage overshadows every other major news worthy event.

My position is well known, and only creates a standoff, that:

1.) The actual phone records, if ever produced, will undoubtedly place Simpson in the airport or on a plane when his wife was alive talking on an 11:00 PM phone call with her mother.

2.) There were other mitigating issues that should have been explored and divulged relative to this case, namely Ron Goldman's extensive criminal record, and its protection under Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 6254, "The Confidential Informant or Snitch Protection" law, and its' implication relative to this case.

3.) The apparent cover up by FBI agents regarding their stated knowledge of a common shoe sole found on 19 different brands of shoes besides the brand, Bruno Magli, that they allege created the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.

In short the American media fascination with OJ Simpson appears to suck all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere. I am exploring with fascination the reasons why. If you want to KISS, there are several other threads that it appears do just that, and would likely accomodate your wishes.

I would advise that you go there, if this one is too heavy for you to appreciate.

[Kate Sachel]

If the issue of suppressed and concealed evidence were not involved, I don't think that you would have the perception of racial animus as your apparent sense of paranoia appears to suggest. The fact that you have concluded, with very sketchy evidence, that racial hatred is a motive here, appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend what has possibly been orchestrated intentionally to bring you to such conclusions relative to this OJ matter.

My thread was entitled "Othellean Syndrome" and I believe, not unlike Dominic Dunne, in his Vanity Fair article, that this whole affair has the appearance of a Shakespearean fictional plot. That is, however, about as much as we do mutually agree upon, but nevertheless, it is a start.

I'm certainly not blinded by a perception that a Black man has been wrongly accused. Nor do I have any reservation about the fact that Black men, as well as White, are involved in domestic abuse. For me, it would be a simple matter of fact, if so much of the crucial evidence was not in conflict with itself. However, it so happens that it is, and that makes your leap to conclusions based upon non-related events ever more troubling when examining the psychological well being of basic logic in greater Americana, today.

I appear to have a sense of paranoia because I believe that race was injected unfairly into a scenario that's as simple and as old as time? I think you're trying to make a circle fit into a square and I believe that appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend the fact that this case garners such strong opinions and debates because of the fact that many feel that justice was not served in one of the worst ways possible, which is 12 people attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time.

Kate

[Big Ben]

I appear to have a sense of paranoia because I believe that race was injected unfairly into a scenario that's as simple and as old as time? I think you're trying to make a circle fit into a square and I believe that appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend the fact that this case garners such strong opinions and debates because of the fact that many feel that justice was not served in one of the worst ways possible, which is 12 people attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time.

Kate

Kate,

What is "as simple and as old as time"?

What jurors, which I assume that you are talking about, expressed to you or anyone else that they "were attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time?"

It appears that justice was intentionally usurped, to produce this very outcome of animosity, through intentional malfeasance based upon the conclusions that we have derived from the investigation that I have been deeply involved with.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

What is "as simple and as old as time"?

What jurors, which I assume that you are talking about, expressed to you or anyone else that they "were attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time?"

It appears that justice was intentionally usurped, to produce this very outcome of animosity, through intentional malfeasance based upon the conclusions that we have derived from the investigation that I have been deeply involved with.

What is as simple and as old as time is the man that kills the women he no longer has control over.

We are going to run into trouble if you'd like to begin suggesting that I claimed any juror expressed that sentiment to myself or another. My post reads that "many people feel" that was their agenda.

I have stated before, and for your sake once again, that I agree with the verdict of the jurors even though I also believe Simpson to be a murderer.

Kate

[bobaugust]

What is as old as time, Kate, is supplantation. In the bible Jacob, with the encouragement of his mother, supplanted false evidence in order to mislead his father with an intentionally fraudulent scheme of deception.

This is no different than the suppression of evidence, of the crucial Brown telephone records, that the defense and prosecution mutually concealed to deceive the American public. I've posted this Youtube excerpt from 'Serpents Rising' to show you the act of deception perpetrated on you, and as well the broader American public.

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo


Furthermore, I never claimed anything in regard to you. I was simply wondering how you reached your conclusion.

My question again is what remarks has the jury stated publicly that has given you or those that you identify as "many people feel" that retribution for police misconduct or any other reason was the jury's agenda.

Even without the new evidence that our ongoing investigation has discovered and attempted to reveal since 1996, the jury simply could have been hampered by the real issue of reasonable doubt.

Big Ben, the only deception being perpetrated here is by you. You have dishonestly edited what was said in the court on July 6, 1995 by not only taking selected sentences, some even partial sentences, spoken by Clark and Cochran out of context but you even changed the order that those sentences were said in. And then you claim that Clark and Cochran were perpetrating a deception. I 'm sorry to say your Serpents Rising tape is a fraud. Any one who reads the transcript of the proceedings on July 6, 1995 will be able to see that for themselves.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, the only deception being perpetrated here is by you. You have dishonestly edited what was said in the court on July 6, 1995 by not only taking selected sentences, some even partial sentences, spoken by Clark and Cochran out of context but you even changed the order that those sentences were said in. And then you claim that Clark and Cochran were perpetrating a deception. I 'm sorry to say your Serpents Rising tape is a fraud. Any one who reads the transcript of the proceedings on July 6, 1995 will be able to see that for themselves.

bobaugust

Well, august, why don't you explain the context of Mr. Cochran's remarks.

Most people that have seen the video excerpt, rather than your proposition of just reading the transcript, are genuinely perplexed regarding Mr. Cochran's intention.

It appears to most that Cochran is pleading with Judge Ito to acknowledge the need for fair exchange, or quid pro quo, in his 352 argument regarding the prejudicial impact versus the probative value of allowing the jury to see the bloody murder photos.

But I'm waiting with baited breath to hear your explanation of why Cochran has reminded the Judge that they all agreed not to show the jury the telephone bills.

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .But I'm waiting with baited breath. . ."

ewww -- I'm guessing you really meant 'bated' -- LOL

[bobaugust]

Well, august, why don't you explain the context of Mr. Cochran's remarks.

Most people that have seen the video excerpt, rather than your proposition of just reading the transcript, are genuinely perplexed regarding Mr. Cochran's intention.

It appears to most that Cochran is pleading with Judge Ito to acknowledge the need for fair exchange, or quid pro quo, in his 352 argument regarding the prejudicial impact versus the probative value of allowing the jury to see the bloody murder photos.

But I'm waiting with baited breath to hear your explanation of why Cochran has reminded the Judge that they all agreed not to show the jury the telephone bills.

Big Ben, of course some people might be perplexed. You cut and edited conversations to make it sound like you wanted it to sound not as it was actually said. Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills. I don't recall any telephone bills being shown directly to the jury, not Simpson's, not Kaelin's, not Park's, not Pilnak's, except on an exhibit, or on the elmo.

(Cochran said in the partial portion on your tape)
"I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever."

(Cochran continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
"So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it."

THE COURT: People.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter.

(The partial portion you used out of order on your tape putting it before, not after Cochran's statement)
And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all

(Clark continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

The conversation continued regarding the photographs and then regarding the stipulations. The jury was called back in and Clark offered the following stipulations:
A stipulation with respect to Juditha Brown's testimony.
A stipulation regarding the telephone records including those marked as exhibits for Simpson.
First for Simpson's complete GTE telephone Bill dated June 25, 1994
Second for Juditha Brown's complete GTE telephone Bill dated July 4, 1994
A stipulation for coroner photographs contained in People's 354 showing the body of Nicole Brown Simpson.
And for coroner photographs contained in Peoples 358-B showing the body of Ron Goldman.
And for photographs on People's exhibit 359 showing the bodies as they were found at Bundy.

Cochran agreed to all of the Stipulations.

And then the People rested.

bobaugust

[tv]

Big Ben, of course some people might be perplexed. You cut and edited conversations to make it sound like you wanted it to sound not as it was actually said. Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills. I don't recall any telephone bills being shown directly to the jury, not Simpson's, not Kaelin's, not Park's, not Pilnak's, except on an exhibit, or on the elmo.

(Cochran said in the partial portion on your tape)
"I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever."

(Cochran continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
"So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it."

THE COURT: People.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter.

(The partial portion you used out of order on your tape putting it before, not after Cochran's statement)
And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all

(Clark continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

The conversation continued regarding the photographs and then regarding the stipulations. The jury was called back in and Clark offered the following stipulations:
A stipulation with respect to Juditha Brown's testimony.
A stipulation regarding the telephone records including those marked as exhibits for Simpson.
First for Simpson's complete GTE telephone Bill dated June 25, 1994
Second for Juditha Brown's complete GTE telephone Bill dated July 4, 1994
A stipulation for coroner photographs contained in People's 354 showing the body of Nicole Brown Simpson.
And for coroner photographs contained in Peoples 358-B showing the body of Ron Goldman.
And for photographs on People's exhibit 359 showing the bodies as they were found at Bundy.

Cochran agreed to all of the Stipulations.

And then the People rested.

bobaugustThanks for making this clear, bobaugust. That's something I've noticed some people doing on this forum -- posting things out of context and out of order to bolster their position. :)

[Big Ben]

ewww -- I'm guessing you really meant 'bated' -- LOL

LOL-OOPS! Thanks Weezer

[Big Ben]

Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills.



Nice try, bob!

You have conveniently deleted the flavor of the passionate argument that was being made by Cochran, a lengthy argument that, may I remind you, Cochran demanded to have.

I see that you've conveniently overlooked a few salient remarks that constituted the flavor of the lengthy argument.

1.) Cochran stated that before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be further heard in regard to another 352 argument he was prepared to offer the court,(mind you the jury was out).

This flies in the face of your implication that Cochran was eager to move on with the trial. He wasn't that eager to accept the stipulations unless those bloody photos were not going to be shown.

2.) Cochran waged a long and extensive 352 argument, full of passion, even reminding the judge that these photographs were so "gruesome" that they caused the judge to interrupt the trial for 15 minutes and let the jurors go out and collect themselves, the last time that they saw them.

3.) It was within the heated context of this passionate debate that Johnnie Cochran concludes his argument with the remark (which I noticed that you changed we for he).

Cochran said, "We're not going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point, we didn't---we're not going to show them the telephone bills or whatever".

It was a inclusive remark, (we), that implicity referred to the judge and prosecution lawyers and defense team.

Cochran was implying, Juditha Brown's telephone bill, could prejudice the jury if they saw it. Its' own prejudical impact out weighed the probative value. There is only one way that I know that Juditha Brown's phone records could have prejudiced the jurors.

We may have cut for the sake of expediency, august, but unlike you, we didn't attempt to misrepresent the intent. Here's the link. Let the people be the judge.
www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[bobaugust]

Nice try, bob!

You have conveniently deleted the flavor of the passionate argument that was being made by Cochran, a lengthy argument that, may I remind you, Cochran demanded to have.

I see that you've conveniently overlooked a few salient remarks that constituted the flavor of the lengthy argument.

1.) Cochran stated that before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be further heard in regard to another 352 argument he was prepared to offer the court,(mind you the jury was out).

This flies in the face of your implication that Cochran was eager to move on with the trial. He wasn't that eager to accept the stipulations unless those bloody photos were not going to be shown.

2.) Cochran waged a long and extensive 352 argument, full of passion, even reminding the judge that these photographs were so "gruesome" that they caused the judge to interrupt the trial for 15 minutes and let the jurors go out and collect themselves, the last time that they saw them.

3.) It was within the heated context of this passionate debate that Johnnie Cochran concludes his argument with the remark (which I noticed that you changed we for he).

Cochran said, "We're not going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point, we didn't---we're not going to show them the telephone bills or whatever".

It was a inclusive remark, (we), that implicity referred to the judge and prosecution lawyers and defense team.

Cochran was implying, Juditha Brown's telephone bill, could prejudice the jury if they saw it. Its' own prejudical impact out weighed the probative value. There is only one way that I know that Juditha Brown's phone records could have prejudiced the jurors.

We may have cut for the sake of expediency, august, but unlike you, we didn't attempt to misrepresent the intent. Here's the link. Let the people be the judge.
www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

Big Ben, the fact that you put your own distorted interpretation on Cochran's words doesn't change the fact that you cut and edited the film using partial sentences taken out of context and even changing the order they were said to create a deceiving fraudulent video.

1.) Cochran did not state that "before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be heard in regard to another 352 argument, he said he would like to be heard and then we can proceed with THE simulation. The stipulation regarding the photographs.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. And I would like to be heard with regard to a 352 objection, a further 352 objection as to exhibits 354 and 358-B for the record, and then we can proceed with the stipulation.

2.) I'm not sure how long Cochran's argument was but in the end Ito overruled Cochran and allowed the display to be shown for five seconds.

THE COURT: All right. The probative value of 354, the board, I think is not only the individual photographs, but the group of photographs together because they give different perspectives to how Miss Brown Simpson was found and relative to the footprints and other things that are there. So the renewed objection under 352 is overruled for the previously stated reasons. I will allow the display, the brief five-second display merely to say, "This is what it is," five seconds so they can see which exhibit it is, and then it comes back down. Five seconds literally and I mean five seconds.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if there's any TV, can we cut the feed on that? Is that necessary?
THE COURT: No. The--Mr. Bancroft will be directed not to take--capture any of those images as will the photographers.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, your Honor, the People had anticipated doing it in that manner if we were allowed to do it and I've already requested that Dana, Mr. Escobar assist us in that he will simply hold it up and put it down. So we're ready to.

3,) As to Cochran concluding this "passionate" debate with his argument with the remark "We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever." you are wrong again.

This was not Cochran's conclusion, the debate continued until Judge Ito ruled on it and then asked Cochran if he had discussed these stipulations with Simpson and if they were acceptable to him. Cochran said yes.

As to the word "We're" it is clear Cochran was referring to only the defense, not the prosecutors and not to the judge. He could not speak for the prosecutors or the judge.

When Cochran said it could prejudice the jury if they saw it and the prejudicial impact out weighed the probative value he was referring to the photographs. Cochran never made any such claim regarding any of the telephone records. More incorrect spin by you Big Ben.

"and even the Court has agreed in part because that is a cropped photograph, which certainly went along with our argument that the prejudicial effect of that photograph of Mr. Goldman and his injuries far outweighs any probative value."

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

You are completely off base, bobaugust, about the implication of Cochrans remarks relative to those phantom phone records. The record indicates that the crucial phone bills that we presently debate, the Juditha Brown Phone Records, would not be shown to the crucial entity that matters, the "trier of fact" or the jury. They do not show up on the exhibit Dept. Manifest. They are truly phantom phone records.

You would expect that the most vital piece of evidence that timewise either gives Simpson the time to commit the murders or it does not would not be mysteriously missing. However, they are.

I'm sorry but no one that I know reaches your conclusion in either the abbreviated or extended version of Cochran's 07/06/95 remark.

Here! I post the link again, you need to seek an unbiased opinion. www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[William Anthony]

Thanks for making this clear, bobaugust. That's something I've noticed some people doing on this forum -- posting things out of context and out of order to bolster their position. :)

Thanks for remiinding Mr. August, :). I am glad that I do not have a navigator spell checker, :).

[bobaugust]

You are completely off base, bobaugust, about the implication of Cochrans remarks relative to those phantom phone records. The record indicates that the crucial phone bills that we presently debate, the Juditha Brown Phone Records, would not be shown to the crucial entity that matters, the "trier of fact" or the jury. They do not show up on the exhibit Dept. Manifest. They are truly phantom phone records.

You would expect that the most vital piece of evidence that timewise either gives Simpson the time to commit the murders or it does not would not be mysteriously missing. However, they are.

I'm sorry but no one that I know reaches your conclusion in either the abbreviated or extended version of Cochran's 07/06/95 remark.

Here! I post the link again, you need to seek an unbiased opinion. www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

Big Ben, no I'm not off base, you are. Your film is a fraud. You have edited selected sentences and words spoken by Clark and Cochran taken out of context and rearranged to create a fictional account of what actually happened in court to try and deceive viewers to support your false beliefs.

Why you are allowed to continually post a link to this deception on this discussion group is the real question.

bobaugust

[tv]

Thanks for remiinding Mr. August, :). I am glad that I do not have a navigator spell checker, :).William, you know I'm not referring to bobaugust, but thank you anyway. :)

[William Anthony]

William, you know I'm not referring to bobaugust, but thank you anyway. :)

Tv,

I am sorry, when I saw his name, I thought that you were reminding him-my bad! I am still glad I do not have his particular type of spell checker, :). Does your spell checker automatically check testimony that you cut and paste, because mine does not? Never mind-don't answer! We had better get back OT.

[bobaugust]

How many bites do you want on this apple, bob?

Big Ben, as many bites as necessary to explain the reality of what actually happened.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, as many bites as necessary to explain the reality of what actually happened.

bobaugust

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[tv]

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEoI didn't learn much. It looks to me like you have to spend money to find out the rest of the story. Why don't you just tell us all about it? :)

[Big Ben]

I didn't learn much. It looks to me like you have to spend money to find out the rest of the story. Why don't you just tell us all about it? :)

Well, TV

A follow up on residents that alleged Ron Goldman was involved in drug sales at the Cheviot Hills Tennis Courts produced no takers for a video taped interview due to fear.

A further follow up with the Park Board received cold shoulder for request to view any public files relative to Goldman's employment.

Heightened curiosity caused the investigative group to make use of the contacts within the L.A. Superior Courthouse to inquire about any criminal record of Goldman. This effort was rewarded with an affirmative response that Goldman in deed had a criminal file that was kept not downtown but out at the L.A. Municipal Court Bldg. in Malibu.

Subsequent inquiry at the Malibu Courthouse found a 6" criminal file for Ron. An argument ensued with one of the OMIG investigators and employees of the Courthouse that prevented a thorough examination of the file. Certified letters to all four judges that had released Goldman with no jail time for continuing to drive recklessly with suspended drivers' license, $16, 000 in fugitive arrest warrants, for failure to appear in court for arraignment, netted a final answer.

Ron Goldman's criminal file is not available for public examination and is exempt from the California Public Records Act, pursuant to the California Gov't Code, Sec. 6254, which protects the records of Confidential Informants who are cooperating with police and other law enforcement agencies within the State of California.

It appears that, if OJ was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive talking on the telephone, the motive for the murders of the two victims may have been associated with criminal activity in which Ron Goldman appears to have been involved. If he was a snitch, acting as an informant for the police, certainly this would have placed him in harms way, since it would have been a very hazardous position for one to find themselves in. Certainly as it relates to trafficking in narcotics.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[cat840]

This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

So what is the purpose of having this prolonged debate?

[bobaugust]

It appears that, if OJ was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive talking on the telephone, the motive for the murders of the two victims may have been associated with criminal activity in which Ron Goldman appears to have been involved. If he was a snitch, acting as an informant for the police, certainly this would have placed him in harms way, since it would have been a very hazardous position for one to find themselves in. Certainly as it relates to trafficking in narcotics.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

Simpson wasn't on a flight to Chicago when Nicole was still alive. All of the evidence is that Nicole was killed about 10:45 P.M. Simpson's flight took off about 11:45 P.M.

Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ron was simply doing a favor for Nicole by dropping off her mother's eyeglasses at Nicole's condo on his way to meet some friends in Marina Del Ray when Simpson attacked him and killed him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

Big Ben, my take on that video is that it is completely meaningless to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

So what is the purpose of having this prolonged debate?

Cat,

Do you mean this small group here?

Or

Are you asking a general question as to why the national news media, i.e. CNN-News, CNN-Larry King, CNN-Anderson Cooper, New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CBS, E! Entertainment News, EXTRA, Entertainment Tonight, is so continually fascinated with this subject, to the extent that the coverage of OJ sucks all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere, and virtually smothers every other newsworthy event?

[Big Ben]

Simpson wasn't on a flight to Chicago when Nicole was still alive. All of the evidence is that Nicole was killed about 10:45 P.M. Simpson's flight took off about 11:45 P.M.

Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ron was simply doing a favor for Nicole by dropping off her mother's eyeglasses at Nicole's condo on his way to meet some friends in Marina Del Ray when Simpson attacked him and killed him.

bobaugust

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.

Yet again, bob, I know that you have an answer!

I think you used the old Lou Brown excuse for him too. The police rousted him out of bed too early, he still had sleep in his eyes, or he wasn't fully awake yet. Isn't that about right, brother bob?

As far as Ron just being a good samuritan carrying eyeglasses, eyebrows will raise if it is revealed that Ron has an extensive criminal file and that the police are restricting it from public scrutiny, using a Confidential Informant (Snitch) protection law as a shield.

Look at it again<*R> how could you or I remain a fugitive from the law with an outstanding arrest warrant still hanging over us, $16, 000 in just three and a half years for failure to appear for arraignment, drive other peoples' expensive cars with a suspended license, and no insurance. Get arrested again with the same suspended license and do no time. How could you even get a job without a proper criminal background search? All of these questions need to be answered, bob.

[weezer]

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.

Yet again, bob, I know that you have an answer!

I think you used the old Lou Brown excuse for him too. The police rousted him out of bed too early, he still had sleep in his eyes, or he wasn't fully awake yet. Isn't that about right, brother bob?

As far as Ron just being a good samuritan carrying eyeglasses, eyebrows will raise if it is revealed that Ron has an extensive criminal file and that the police are restricting it from public scrutiny, using a Confidential Informant (Snitch) protection law as a shield.

Look at it again, <*R> how could you or I remain a fugitive from the law with an outstanding arrest warrant still hanging over us, $16, 000 in just three and a half years for failure to appear for arraignment, drive other peoples' expensive cars with a suspended license, and no insurance. Get arrested again with the same suspended license and do no time. How could you even get a job without a proper criminal background search? All of these questions need to be answered, bob.

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

[cat840]

Cat,

Do you mean this small group here?

Or

Are you asking a general question as to why the national news media, i.e. CNN-News, CNN-Larry King, CNN-Anderson Cooper, New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CBS, E! Entertainment News, EXTRA, Entertainment Tonight, is so continually fascinated with this subject, to the extent that the coverage of OJ sucks all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere, and virtually smothers every other newsworthy event?

I got the impression that you thought the case was manipulated to give this effect. I then wondered what you think the manipulators wanted to accomplish by having this "prolonged debate" afterwards.

[socaldiva]

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

Orenthal can only dream of having a reputation/record such as Ron had :rolleyes:

[Big Ben]

I got the impression that you thought the case was manipulated to give this effect. I then wondered what you think the manipulators wanted to accomplish by having this "prolonged debate" afterwards.

It would be reckless of me as an investigator to render a subjective opinion. That is a playing field for people that have not had their hands on contradictory evidence. My questions are hopefully objectively focused to question the irregularities in regard to what has been officially claimed to be the record. Thus, why is so much missing from the criminal file (The People of State of CA. vs. Orenthal J. Simpson), or denied freedom of information privilege, or sealed, or that which was intentionally kept from the jury, or misrepresented or understated, etc.etc.

Though I have my personal thoughts, I would have been dismissed from the investigative group a long time ago, had I ventured into the time ineffectiveness of subjective examination, of subjective evidence, with no viable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise to back it up.

I'm sorry I can't comment, it would do, in my opinion the exact thing that you are examining, promulgating the extention of prolonged debate.

[Big Ben]

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

Yeah, I've said the same thing, Weezer. If you simply wanted to maintain this boy's reputation as a fair haired, all American, good Samuritan, then why hide his record???

Then embarrassingly have it discovered intentionally hidden in an unusual area, then restrict access under a provision of law that is meant to protect a "Snitch". You're right, Weezer, exactly what we said in 2000, all this hidden madness for a traffic ticket ???? But then again, what traffic tickets that you know of creates a 6 inch criminal file.

As far as the YouTube clip is concerned no one has twisted your arm to look at it. Shield your eyes, and your ears, like your momma taught you to do when you were a child.

[Big Ben]

Orenthal can only dream of having a reputation/record such as Ron had :rolleyes:

If he keeps creating those type of Las Vegas antics, he just may accomplish that type of record. With all the time in prison associated with some of those ridiculous charges they put on him, he might find it more beneficial to flip over and become a "snitch" too.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, my take on that video is that it is completely meaningless to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

Well my beef, bobsky, is that they didn't leak any of this to the public, since you all have become a part of this unofficial body deemed the 'court of public opinion'. Why not? Why didn't the media do their due diligence and reveal Goldman's criminal background. They could have let the public opinion court examine it and talk about its' relevance, like they have everything else whether relevant about the murders or not.

They showed you Simpson's criminal file photo (even darkened it, as I remember), but Goldman's five arrest photos for the one case that he ran up enormous arrest warrants, the authorities don't want to release and the media has not bothered to request. The media, however, was more than happy to leak information about Simpson's deceased father possibly having homosexual tendencies.

Yep, so much for fairness in the media and the press!

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Simpson's deceased father possibly having homosexual tendencies.


IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

[Big Ben]

IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

Where there's smoke there's usually fire, that's been my experience, Weezer, especially with this case. My rant isn't about the traffic tickets, that's your misinterpretation. My rant is about the unusual favorable judicial treatment Ron received for more misconduct than Paris Hilton; the smoke.

This judicial abnormality, led to the requests to review his criminal record, that's when we discovered a thick criminal file. If there is a real Weezer in the world, we'd certainly have a right to review your criminal record, if you weren't a snitch. Why not his, unless there is more to it that they don't want people to see; the fire.

You act like you can't stand the thought of old Ron being a "snitch", show some balance at least, show about as much as you seem to in relishing Simpson's father being outed as gay.

It doesn't peek my interest though, whether Simpson's dad was gay or not, there's no law against that. My interest is whether Ron was involved in drug trafficking and was he an under cover informant, a "snitch". Because if he was, I need not remind you of how hazardess that profession can be.

It is a fact that he was protected, it's certainly not ludicrous that we question why the lawyers never mentioned that he was protected under a snitch law.

Therefore, it certainly is possible that if Simpson was on that plane while his wife was still alive, Ron Goldman being a snitch could have been probable cause for his and her deaths. Isn't that plausible, Weezer?

[bobaugust]

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.



Big Ben, your claim is incorrect. Schwab did not change his story. Schwab never told the police the time of 11:15 P.M.

The police woke Schwab up at about 5:00 A.M. the morning after the murders to interview him. Schwab testified after they told him that the Akita was somehow connected to a homicide he was shocked and scared. He said he wasn't thinking clearly when he first mentioned 11:30 and then said no it must have been around 11:00. After the police left, Schwab went back to sleep. When woke up he was able to recall what had happened based on television shows that were on that night. He recalled that he had left his house to walk his dog at 10:30, came across the Akita at approximately 10:55 and returned home with the both dogs at about 11:05. Schwab then called the police to correct his statement.

In his testimony Schwab also told how he flagged down a passing police car as the Akita was following him, and told the officer about finding the lost dog. The officer took his name, address, and telephone number telling him he would contact the animal shelter and that Schwab should continue on home with the dog. In the criminal trial Officer Benjamin Jones came forward after hearing about Schwab's testimony and realizing he was that officer. He was interviewed by the prosecutors and they obtained a copy of the report he made at the time. The interview and the report were given to the defense and Jones was available to testify. Since there was no dispute about the times Schwab testified to by Simpson's attorneys, Jones was never called.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Where there's smoke there's usually fire, that's been my experience, Weezer, especially with this case. My rant isn't about the traffic tickets, that's your misinterpretation. My rant is about the unusual favorable judicial treatment Ron received for more misconduct than Paris Hilton; the smoke.

This judicial abnormality, led to the requests to review his criminal record, that's when we discovered a thick criminal file. If there is a real Weezer in the world, we'd certainly have a right to review your criminal record, if you weren't a snitch. Why not his, unless there is more to it that they don't want people to see; the fire.

You act like you can't stand the thought of old Ron being a "snitch", show some balance at least, show about as much as you seem to in relishing Simpson's father being outed as gay.

It doesn't peek my interest though, whether Simpson's dad was gay or not, there's no law against that. My interest is whether Ron was involved in drug trafficking and was he an under cover informant, a "snitch". Because if he was, I need not remind you of how hazardess that profession can be.

It is a fact that he was protected, it's certainly not ludicrous that we question why the lawyers never mentioned that he was protected under a snitch law.

Therefore, it certainly is possible that if Simpson was on that plane while his wife was still alive, Ron Goldman being a snitch could have been probable cause for his and her deaths. Isn't that plausible, Weezer?

if you look hard enough, even an innocent shadow becomes menacing -- that's been my experience. We have your word that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron and quite frankly, you don't carry a whole lot of credibility with me. We also have a way big police file on orenthal that dates back to his young years. We know that orenthal was an abusive and controlling boyfriend/husband. We know that at the end of her life, Nicole and orenthal were in an all out 'war' and that she stated he was going to kill her and he stated he was going to kill her. imo

And quite frankly, it is neither plausible or probable that Ron had anything to do with orenthal murdering Nicole on that night other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the true shame of Ron's death. imo

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, your claim is incorrect. Schwab did not change his story. Schwab never told the police the time of 11:15 P.M.


bobaugust

"Schwab did not change his story???" What are you smoking, bobaugust?

Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say bobaugust, that Steven Schwab would have the same epiphany as Lou Brown, and later, Juditha Brown, about the time not being 11:00 PM or thereafter.

His revised time statement came in the same week that Juditha and Lou Brown revised their initial statement of 11:00 PM or thereafter. As you know the 11:00 PM statements strongly eliminated the possibility of Simpson being the perpetrator of these murders.

It appears that every uttered time statement favoring Simpson's elimination had to be changed.

Shapiro's stipulation of 10:17 PM of the Mezzaluna call ultimately became 9:37PM.

Tia Gavin's initial statement would have had Ron's time card at Mezzaluna at 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM, but then they confirmed that the timeclock had been changed. No other Mezzaluna time devices changed, but after rethinking the matter, the timeclock was changed......Sure!!!!

Even Faye Resnick had to change her time statement of when she last talked with Nicole on Maury Povich's show when she said she was on the phone with Nicole at 10:45 PM....After prompting by Maury, "You mean 9:45 PM, don't you???" Faye Resnick: Oh yeah, I meant 9:45 PM.

But continuous revision of crucial time evidence is alright with you, because old bob's got an answer.

[martin II]

IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

weezer

Whether oj's father was gay or not has what to do with the case or oj personal life. On the one hand many have said oj was a womanizer and had relationships with too many women. So i am puzzled as to why you continue
to try to put forth the idea that oj's father, reported to be gay had anything to do with oj's sexual life or anything else. it seems that it is your opinion that since oj's father was gay this somehow means that so was oj and that oj had some sexual interest in Mr Woods. This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you based a hugh dose of hate by you.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

I would like to know why a person like Ron Goldman would be able to have his records sealed if they are only about traffic tickets. This makes no sense at all. I have never heard of records being sealed for traffic tickets. I do remember that there was a story out that fred Goldman had refused to bail his beloved son Ron out of jail for some infraction of the law.I don't remember exactly what the charge was at that time. but it seems strange that fred would not put up the bail to get him out if the charge was a simple traffic ticket.
Why are rons records sealed???
martin II


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


The murder
On July 30, 1993, Brett Cantor, the owner of a Hollywood nightclub called the Dragonfly, was murdered with knife in a method identical to Ronald Goldman : from behind, across the throat, and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman frequented the club. Michael Nigg, a Mezzaluna waiter and Ron Goldman’s friend, was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.

One theory says that Goldman and Brown-Simpson were killed by a hitman, because they failed to pay debts to the local drug dealers. Supposedly, the two of them wanted to co-own Goldmans's dream restaurant. Brentwood was an area where illegal drugs were sold by Joey Ippolito and others at clubs and fancy restaurants. O.J. Simpson and Nicole were alleged cocaine users. Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said that Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ronald Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. She and her friends were “over their heads with some dope dealers” Hoestler said.

[weezer]

I would like to know why a person like Ron Goldman would be able to have his records sealed if they are only about traffic tickets. This makes no sense at all. I have never heard of records being sealed for traffic tickets. I do remember that there was a story out that fred Goldman had refused to bail his beloved son Ron out of jail for some infraction of the law.I don't remember exactly what the charge was at that time. but it seems strange that fred would not put up the bail to get him out if the charge was a simple traffic ticket.
Why are rons records sealed???
martin II


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


The murder
On July 30, 1993, Brett Cantor, the owner of a Hollywood nightclub called the Dragonfly, was murdered with knife in a method identical to Ronald Goldman : from behind, across the throat, and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman frequented the club. Michael Nigg, a Mezzaluna waiter and Ron Goldman’s friend, was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.

One theory says that Goldman and Brown-Simpson were killed by a hitman, because they failed to pay debts to the local drug dealers. Supposedly, the two of them wanted to co-own Goldmans's dream restaurant. Brentwood was an area where illegal drugs were sold by Joey Ippolito and others at clubs and fancy restaurants. O.J. Simpson and Nicole were alleged cocaine users. Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said that Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ronald Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. She and her friends were “over their heads with some dope dealers” Hoestler said.

this post is so ridiculous, it's laughable. orenthal's police record is much more substantial than Ron's and orenthal had drugs in HIS system on the night he murdered two human beings (neither victim had drugs in their system ONLY orenthal) but you want everyone to believe that the victims were responsible for orenthal's uncontrollable rage? Please. imo

[weezer]

weezer

Whether oj's father was gay or not has what to do with the case or oj personal life. On the one hand many have said oj was a womanizer and had relationships with too many women. So i am puzzled as to why you continue
to try to put forth the idea that oj's father, reported to be gay had anything to do with oj's sexual life or anything else. it seems that it is your opinion that since oj's father was gay this somehow means that so was oj and that oj had some sexual interest in Mr Woods. This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you based a hugh dose of hate by you.

imo
martin II

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

[martin II]

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

well according to your way of thinking all or most children of gay people
have some kind of hidden gay sex desires. Do you include females of gay parents also. Or is your bias limited to men children only?


MARTIN ii

[weezer]

well according to your way of thinking all or most children of gay people
have some kind of hidden gay sex desires. Do you include females of gay parents also. Or is your bias limited to men children only?


MARTIN ii

you have purposely misinterpreted my statement -- so be it.

[Big Ben]

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.

[tv]

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.You're the one who brought up Simpson's father's sexual orientation. It was something I wasn't even aware of until you mentioned it. Speaking of character assassinations, what do you call this whole conversation about Ron and Nicole and their supposed drug use and shady connections?

My question is if all this evidence exists that someone other than OJ Simpson killed these two people why hasn't he jumped on the evidence and tried to bring it to light? After all, he vowed to find the real killer or killers. Why isn't he interested in following these leads?

[weezer]

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.

Dude -- you're the one walking around in a tin hat and humming the theme to "Twilight Zone" -- imo

[Big Ben]

We have your word that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron and quite frankly, you don't carry a whole lot of credibility with me.
And quite frankly, it is neither plausible or probable that Ron had anything to do with orenthal murdering Nicole on that night other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the true shame of Ron's death. imo

That's right Weezer, kill the messenger! Although I have no reason to lie to you.

I know how thick it is because I saw it, and I saw the reactions of those attempting to hide his file, so that they could continue to perpetuate the myth for which people like you seem to be so fond.

Why hide it, Weezer? Whether it was 6" thick or 6 mm thick, there is no question about their intent to hide it, that is what the letter from the LAPD is stating in the documentary. Need I post the YouTube link again?

If my assertions are not valid in your opinion, I'm not afraid to tell you to submit your inquiry to the L.A. County law enforcement authorities and see what they say to you about examining Ron or Faye Resnick's criminal file.
They told us that Ron had 5 criminal arrest photos but again refused to give them up, citing some obscure law of restriction. Why not though? They gave up OJ's in less than 24 hours, with apparently no restriction, and darkened it too.

People like you just can't stand the agony of defeat, so just as rats do, scurry to the top of the Maste of this sinking vessel of lies. That hot coat of deceit for which you are covered completely with lies, cannot stand emersion in the cool waters of truth and purification. So scurry to the top, Weezer, before you drown in the truth. I don't think your system can take it.

However, beware of bobaugust, that he doesn't accidentally kick you in the head as you approach the top.

[Big Ben]

You're the one who brought up Simpson's father's sexual orientation. It was something I wasn't even aware of until you mentioned it. Speaking of character assassinations, what do you call this whole conversation about Ron and Nicole and their supposed drug use and shady connections?

My question is if all this evidence exists that someone other than OJ Simpson killed these two people why hasn't he jumped on the evidence and tried to bring it to light? After all, he vowed to find the real killer or killers. Why isn't he interested in following these leads?

I brought up what was carried on E! News Entertainment, and my question related to their lack of due diligence relative to the OJ father story. As far as what Simpson did or does not do, has nothing to do with the investigation I've been involved in. I don't give a d**** what he does or does not do. I care, however, about what tax supported government officials, operating under the color of authority do.

Ron and Nicole drug assertions were allegations that led nowhere for us, as I said to you before, because the allegors would not come forth and submit to an interview, and public officials denied us access to park employee records; thus, the smoke.

The finding of the criminal record came as a result of the resistance of the heretofore mentioned above. I haven't alleged anything about drugs that is not already out in the marketplace. My issue is with the continued resistance to withholding Ron Goldman's criminal file under a California "SNITCH PROTECTION LAW" ; the fire.

[Big Ben]

Dude -- you're the one walking around in a tin hat and humming the theme to "Twilight Zone" -- imo

Oh you think you're above me, Weezer? Don't forget your helmet when the bus comes to pick us up, 'cause you can't have mine.

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Ron and Nicole drug assertions were allegations that led nowhere. . ."

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

[martin II]

you have purposely misinterpreted my statement -- so be it.

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

[martin II]

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

you only posted part of his sentance.
martin II

[weezer]

you only posted part of his sentance.
martin II

ahhh -- but it was the most important part! :D

[weezer]

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

do I need proof? hmmmm -- here I was thinking I could just say I "believe" -- silly me! ;)

[Kate Sachel]

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

As far as proof that his dad was gay, OJ admitted such. As far as whether or not that had anything to do with OJ's sexual desires I haven't a clue.

Kate

[socaldiva]

*snip* This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you


I don't think it's possible to assassinate Oj's character. He doesn't have any! :hat:

[Big Ben]

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

[martin II]

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

big ben
Very true

thanks:beer: :beer:

martin II

[weezer]

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

[martin II]

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

[Big Ben]

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

Stay tuned!

[Big Ben]

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

They always do! But you know I don't care about that. They can't get no more from me than they can get from trying to take something in Baghdad!

Instead of backing away, they got to save face, propelled into doom by government lies, fed by psuedo patriotic media frenzy, inventing more and more lies, misrepresentations, false facts.

Like the old Superman, Steve Reeves, used to say..... That's the American Way!

[tv]

They always do! But you know I don't care about that. They can't get no more from me than they can get from trying to take something in Baghdad!

Instead of backing away, they got to save face, propelled into doom by government lies, fed by psuedo patriotic media frenzy, inventing more and more lies, misrepresentations, false facts.

Like the old Superman, Steve Reeves, used to say..... That's the American Way!Big Ben, you are the one that previously called posters on this board names. By the way, that was George Reeves, not Steve Reeves.

I'm not even going to ask you what this discussion has to do with 'taking something in Baghdad'. You're making less sense all the time.

[weezer]

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

nope -- just getting tired of pay-for-view advertising and nut case theories.

IIRC, the rules say that if you post something as fact and are asked to supply proof, you are to do just that. benny has continually dinigrated Ron's name on this Board by posting about an alledged 6" thick police file -- I'm asking him to provide credible proof or to stop posting it.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, you are the one that previously called posters on this board names. By the way, that was George Reeves, not Steve Reeves.

I'm not even going to ask you what this discussion has to do with 'taking something in Baghdad'. You're making less sense all the time.

Yeah, I received the admonishments about the name calling from CL. I simply haven't learned to be as slick as some of you characters, and do it in your fashion, as opposed to being so overt. I'm learning though.

In regard to the Baghdad comment. Baghdad is a metaphor for Iraq and as well a metaphor for this Simpson madness. To me the Simpson saga takes on many of the same elements that got you into this quagmire in Iraq.

The planned government lies and media frenzy made the reasoning environment too hostile for normally controlled individuals to give pause for rational thought. Especially so, when the personal injury is associated with race.

Many Americans became so offended about Iraq (Baghdad) from a racial standpoint, just as many of you became with Simpson, that you not only failed to examine the facts thoroughly but didn't want to examine them at all. Like with Simpson, you accepted only the truth from the self anointed holy grail, Gov't officials, FOX NEWS and CNN.

Well, my answer to anyone that says "shut up" regarding lies told in this Simpson matter, will benefit you about as much as the lies in effect have benefitted those who've tried to steal Baghdad. You get nothing over here.

[socaldiva]

Stay tuned!

I see a recent post about Baghdad, but nothing to backup the claims about Ron Goldman. :shrug:

[Big Ben]

nope -- just getting tired of pay-for-view advertising and nut case theories.

IIRC, the rules say that if you post something as fact and are asked to supply proof, you are to do just that. benny has continually dinigrated Ron's name on this Board by posting about an alledged 6" thick police file -- I'm asking him to provide credible proof or to stop posting it.

I say that there is a 6 inch criminal file on Ronald Lyle Goldman, DOB 07/02/68
there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks, the letter states in the body that Ron Goldman's criminal file, along with that of Faye Resnick, is exempt from public examination, under the California Public Records Act, by virtue of its protection under California Gov't Code section 6254.

Sec. 6254, Weezer, is a law that is intended to protect the identity of people engaged with law enforcement as confidential informants. Confidential informants in street vernacular are called "Snitches", and snitching can be hazardess to one's health and general well being, wouldn't you agree, again, Weezer?

Now if the file is protected from public access, by law, how would you propose that I provide it to you at this time, Weezer?

[tv]

Yeah, I received the admonishments about the name calling from CL. I simply haven't learned to be as slick as some of you characters, and do it in your fashion, as opposed to being so overt. I'm learning though.

In regard to the Baghdad comment. Baghdad is a metaphor for Iraq and as well a metaphor for this Simpson madness. To me the Simpson saga takes on many of the same elements that got you into this quagmire in Iraq.

The planned government lies and media frenzy made the reasoning environment too hostile for normally controlled individuals to give pause for rational thought. Especially so, when the personal injury is associated with race.

Many Americans became so offended about Iraq (Baghdad) from a racial standpoint, just as many of you became with Simpson, that you not only failed to examine the facts thoroughly but didn't want to examine them at all. Like with Simpson, you accepted only the truth from the self anointed holy grail, Gov't officials, FOX NEWS and CNN.

Well, my answer to anyone that says "shut up" regarding lies told in this Simpson matter, will benefit you about as much as the lies in effect have benefitted those who've tried to steal Baghdad. You get nothing over here.If you want to call avoiding name calling 'slick' so be it. I call it exercising common courtesy and civility and respecting the rules of this message board.

You seem to have a hard time staying focused on the topic at hand. You're literally all over the map with your comments. I had the feeling it was a mistake to join the discussion in this thread to begin and I see I was right. I'll be bidding you farewell now. You're just a little too :eek: for me. :seeya:

[Big Ben]

I see a recent post about Baghdad, but nothing to backup the claims about Ron Goldman. :shrug:

Here, socaldiva! www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[socaldiva]

*snip*there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks

Have you already supplied us with a link to this?

[socaldiva]

Here, socaldiva! www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

OMG it's your own video! Sorry, but that won't do it for me. GMAB! Perhaps someone needs to check into this with youtube. I wonder if the Goldman's know this is playing :rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

"Schwab did not change his story???" What are you smoking, bobaugust?

Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say bobaugust, that Steven Schwab would have the same epiphany as Lou Brown, and later, Juditha Brown, about the time not being 11:00 PM or thereafter.

His revised time statement came in the same week that Juditha and Lou Brown revised their initial statement of 11:00 PM or thereafter. As you know the 11:00 PM statements strongly eliminated the possibility of Simpson being the perpetrator of these murders.

It appears that every uttered time statement favoring Simpson's elimination had to be changed.

Shapiro's stipulation of 10:17 PM of the Mezzaluna call ultimately became 9:37PM.

Tia Gavin's initial statement would have had Ron's time card at Mezzaluna at 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM, but then they confirmed that the timeclock had been changed. No other Mezzaluna time devices changed, but after rethinking the matter, the timeclock was changed......Sure!!!!

Even Faye Resnick had to change her time statement of when she last talked with Nicole on Maury Povich's show when she said she was on the phone with Nicole at 10:45 PM....After prompting by Maury, "You mean 9:45 PM, don't you???" Faye Resnick: Oh yeah, I meant 9:45 PM.

But continuous revision of crucial time evidence is alright with you, because old bob's got an answer.

Big Ben, mistaken recollections by different witnesses have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that when witnesses are asked about something not important to them to at the time it happened they may not recall details correctly. I find nothing wrong with a witness correcting a mistaken recollection or clarifying something they said in an interview.

After Schwab woke up and continued to think about what he had told the police he was able to recall additional details to narrow the time estimate he gave them. He then called the police to correct his statement. Schwab didn't change what he told the police in his interview, he clarified it and testified to it.

Shapiro was mistaken about a 10:17 telephone call. There was no call made by Juditha Brown at that time. A time that doesn't even have anything to do with your fictitious theory.

Tia Gavin testified that when she was interviewed she was confused as to whether they were talking about the time on the NCR machine or the time on the time clock. She corrected her statement when she testified that the only time that was incorrect was the time on the NCR machine.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

If you want to call avoiding name calling 'slick' so be it. I call it exercising common courtesy and civility and respecting the rules of this message board.

You seem to have a hard time staying focused on the topic at hand. You're literally all over the map with your comments. I had the feeling it was a mistake to join the discussion in this thread to begin and I see I was right. I'll be bidding you farewell now. You're just a little too :eek: for me. :seeya:

Your parochial mentality,TV, is what screws you up. You apparently are not a good chess player, because I can assure you that the explanation that I have given you is within the boundaries of certain chess moves, and in the end the objective is to establish a checkmate. Gov't officials play chess and can afford to do it with peoples' lives.

I'm saddened in a way that you have chosen to leave on these terms, but I'm not totally surprised, it's appeared to me that you have been trying to find away to exit the hot seat, due to a lack of significant rebuttals.

I don't wish you any bad luck, you are doing right to find yourself a more elementary discussion. This topic has its own built in heat, you didn't expect that? Au Revoir, Mon Ami.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you are doing right to find yourself a more elementary discussion. This topic has its own built in heat, you didn't expect that? Au Revoir, Mon Ami.

"built in heat"? Don't flatter yourself. All I've seen is a bunch of stuff that is either irrelevant, unsubstaniated, false or self promoting. I do give you props though, considering you state in your profile here that you're 101 years of age. ;)

[Big Ben]

OMG it's your own video! Sorry, but that won't do it for me. GMAB! Perhaps someone needs to check into this with youtube. I wonder if the Goldman's know this is playing :rolleyes:

Why don't you hurry up and tell the Goldman's what's on YouTube?

The docket sheet with Ron's record of thumbing his nose at the court and causing the issuance of $16, 000 in bench and arrest warrants, over 3 and 1/2 years for one case, and dying with outstanding arrests warrants pending is something that we'd like to take up with old Fred in the first place.

You let me know if you need their last known address, better yet just go to the link I just gave you, and you'll see the address on the criminal docket sheet.

But hurry up! Because you apparently think that you are making a bet that wont get faded. But I pretty much know how bold you are? You'll bet on something that's a cinch or run over a dead squirrel. But nothing I believe any more significant than that.

[weezer]

I say that there is a 6 inch criminal file on Ronald Lyle Goldman, DOB 07/02/68
there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks, the letter states in the body that Ron Goldman's criminal file, along with that of Faye Resnick, is exempt from public examination, under the California Public Records Act, by virtue of its protection under California Gov't Code section 6254.

Sec. 6254, Weezer, is a law that is intended to protect the identity of people engaged with law enforcement as confidential informants. Confidential informants in street vernacular are called "Snitches", and snitching can be hazardess to one's health and general well being, wouldn't you agree, again, Weezer?

Now if the file is protected from public access, by law, how would you propose that I provide it to you at this time, Weezer?

and without proof, I will say you are being dishonest. :seeya:

[Big Ben]

and without proof, I will say you are being dishonest. :seeya:

Well, I can understand your position, without calling you arrogant, because that's the same posture that we take when it comes to those missing Brown phone records.

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . . Ron Goldman does have a serious criminal background. . ."

I am requesting a link to Ron Goldman's serious criminal background. If you are unable to prove it up, then by the rules of this Board, you must stop posting this as fact.

[martin II]

I am requesting a link to Ron Goldman's serious criminal background. If you are unable to prove it up, then by the rules of this Board, you must stop posting this as fact.

why is it that when you seem to get angry you start your GIVE ME A LINK routine.
martinii

[weezer]

why is it that when you seem to get angry you start your GIVE ME A LINK routine.
martinii

it has nothing to do with me getting angry but rather tired of irrational and dishonest posters who come on this board to make outrageous and outlandish posts. big ben has posted something he says is fact, I dispute his statement and I have a right to ask for a link. He either provides that link or stops posting his nonsense.

[Jasvon]

People seem to forget the fact that OJ paid his "dream team" BIG $$$$, not to search for the truth, but to plant doubt in the jurors' minds. Their job was to free their client and they did an excellent job of it, which they should have for what they charged. They used everything to plant doubt and the race card and planting of evidence stuck. Had I been on that jury, I would have had too much doubt planted in my mind to have convicted OJ. Those of us who followed the case/trial closely spent hours upon hours researching everything said in the courtroom, but the jurors didn't have that luxury and instead were left with much doubt. I don't fault the jurors at all for their verdict and think the "dream team" did an excellent job freeing their guilty client! OJ paid through the nose for it, though.

~ Jas

[Jasvon]

If you dissagree with a statement do what i do when i read some of your nonsense. move on to the next post.


Are you kidding? I think that's what the jurors did when the Defense threw so much junk at them. Instead of thinking about it, they moved on to the next lie. LOL!

~ Jas

[martin II]

People seem to forget the fact that OJ paid his "dream team" BIG $$$$, not to search for the truth, but to plant doubt in the jurors' minds. Their job was to free their client and they did an excellent job of it, which they should have for what they charged. They used everything to plant doubt and the race card and planting of evidence stuck. Had I been on that jury, I would have had too much doubt planted in my mind to have convicted OJ. Those of us who followed the case/trial closely spent hours upon hours researching everything said in the courtroom, but the jurors didn't have that luxury and instead were left with much doubt. I don't fault the jurors at all for their verdict and think the "dream team" did an excellent job freeing their guilty client! OJ paid through the nose for it, though.

~ Jas


i think race was injected into this cas by the media before the case went to trial. I remember a few jurors stating that furhman had nothing to do with their verdict. I think that some, dissapointed with the weak case the prosecution presented and the loss, just blamed it on the mostly black jury.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

this request by you (give me a link)just seem to happen when people do not agree with what you think you know as fact.If you dissagree with a statement do what i do when i read some of your nonsense. move on to the next post.

It is not representative of adult behavior.
imo
martin II

CL House Rules:
"You Are Responsible For What You Post
You are entirely responsible and liable for all activities conducted through your sessions. It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc..."

emphasis mine

[martin II]

Are you kidding? I think that's what the jurors did when the Defense threw so much junk at them. Instead of thinking about it, they moved on to the next lie. LOL!

~ Jas

The jury sat in the court room for 9 months. I think they heard and though about everything.

martinii

[martin II]

CL House Rules:
"You Are Responsible For What You Post
You are entirely responsible and liable for all activities conducted through your sessions. It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc..."

emphasis mine

everyone knows this.
martin II

[weezer]

i think race was injected into this cas by the media before the case went to trial. I remember a few jurors stating that furhman had nothing to do with their verdict. I think that some, dissapointed with the weak case the prosecution presented and the loss, just blamed it on the mostly black jury.
imo
martin II

"In the eyes of Cooley, Fuhrman was either a Ku Klux Klansman or a skinhead with hair. And she said she didn't believe a word he said." http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

this was the jury foreperson

[weezer]

everyone knows this.
martin II

obviously ben doesn't - :shrug:

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please ----> Othellean Syndrome

Thank you
R

[martin II]

Big ben
It is often said that the media likes to build up a chosen unknown to fame
in the eye of the public only to tear them down at the first saleable mistake
made. Oj would fit his catagory. But the problem i have is why has so many
people become almost enraged at the fact that a legal jury rendered a verdict contrary to what they expected in this case where the interest is still very alive after 12 years. i have not seen this kind of interest for this long a period in other cases where the verdict was not popular.Surely oj was not the first person to receive a not guilty verdict in a murder case.

imo
Martin II

[martin II]

Mistrial Declared In Spector Murder Case

[Big Ben]

Big Ben,

bobaugust

bobaugust's view on time change testimony:

Tia Gavin......"she was confused" ......."Shapiro he was mistaken".......

"Schwab didn't change what he told the police in his interview", "he clarified it".......

"After Schwab woke up and continued to think about what he had told the police. He then called the police "to correct his statement"......

Don't you want to finish up with Juditha Brown? What did she do that I misconstrued, bob?

Oh, and I forgot Faye Resnick, how do you want to explain her revised recollection of time on Maury Povich's show?

You might as well keep going you've done such a excellent patch up job. Um!, It's worthy of a blue ribbon, tres magnifique, bobaugust!

[Big Ben]

I am requesting a link to Ron Goldman's serious criminal background. If you are unable to prove it up, then by the rules of this Board, you must stop posting this as fact.

I doubt that anything will satisfy you, Weezer. You don't want to accept what you are seeing at this link, www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo.

The only other thing that I can say to you is contact the L.A. County Municipal Court at Malibu and ask them if they will provide you with all information regarding case file number 91C00362 People of the State of California v. Ronald Lyle Goldman. I doubt that they will, but you appear to be so interested, it might be worth a try.

The fact is, that in the criminal docket sheet on this case which is shown on YouTube, Goldman continuously ignores the order of the judges to appear for arraignment or final review in court.

Four separate judges issue over $16,000 in arrest warrants due to his insensitivity, and lack of respect for the orders of a court.

Four judges continuously recall the bench warrants after Ron is apprehended and brought to court on three different occasions from 1991 through 1992.

The last bench warrant for Ron's arrest remained outstanding for 18 months from Jan. 1993 through seven days after his death on June 20, 1994, when a judge recalled the final warrant, a $2,500 bench warrant for his arrest.

Albeit, this is only the criminal docket sheet shown on YouTube, and admittedly is not the file. I've asserted previously that we were instructed by court officials that the file is unavailable for examination, that it contains other matter of a criminal nature that are not associated with case file 91C00362. Further we were told that because of the aforementioned issues the total file for case 91C00362 is protected under Sec. 6254 of the CA. Gov't Code.

However, wouldn't whjat is contained in this unusual criminal docket sheet make you curious enough to want to examine his criminal file, Weezer?????

[Big Ben]

Big ben
It is often said that the media likes to build up a chosen unknown to fame
in the eye of the public only to tear them down at the first saleable mistake
made. Oj would fit his catagory. But the problem i have is why has so many
people become almost enraged at the fact that a legal jury rendered a verdict contrary to what they expected in this case where the interest is still very alive after 12 years. i have not seen this kind of interest for this long a period in other cases where the verdict was not popular.Surely oj was not the first person to receive a not guilty verdict in a murder case.

imo
Martin II

Martin, when you examine all of the pieces and find that both the prosecution and defense were acting disengenuously in regard to probable exculpatory evidence, the only conclusion that I can reach is that the whole affair was contrived.

It appears to be an elaborate hoax on the American people purposely intended to engender this type of lengthy, diversive, response.

I would call it: An exercise in the control of mass hysteria. Or you may want to exchange the word experiment for the word exercise.

[bobaugust]

bobaugust's view on time change testimony:

Tia Gavin......"she was confused" ......."Shapiro he was mistaken".......

"Schwab didn't change what he told the police in his interview", "he clarified it".......

"After Schwab woke up and continued to think about what he had told the police. He then called the police "to correct his statement"......

Don't you want to finish up with Juditha Brown? What did she do that I misconstrued, bob?

Oh, and I forgot Faye Resnick, how do you want to explain her revised recollection of time on Maury Povich's show?

You might as well keep going you've done such a excellent patch up job. Um!, It's worthy of a blue ribbon, tres magnifique, bobaugust!

Big Ben, Juditha Brown was obviously grief stricken and upset after learning her daughter had been viciously murdered and she was simply mistaken about when she called and spoke with Nicole for the last time in her life. Faye Resnick simply said the wrong time. Everyone makes mistakes based on many different reasons. I would think someone who claims to be 101 years old would know that.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, Juditha Brown was obviously grief stricken and upset after learning her daughter had been viciously murdered and she was simply mistaken about when she called and spoke with Nicole for the last time in her life. Faye Resnick simply said the wrong time. Everyone makes mistakes based on many different reasons. I would think someone who claims to be 101 years old would know that.

bobaugust

I'm grief stricken! Listening to you make excuses for all these healthy, vibrant, and supposedly intelligent people.

1.) You've got an excuse for why the FBI agent, Bodziak, never mentioned on the witness stand that the Bruno Magli shoe sole was the same Silga U2887 shoe sole sold to 19 other shoe brands around the world. This may have made those Bruno Magli shoe soles as common as Nike.

2.) You've got an excuse for Johnnie Cochran's remark that the lawyers and the judge had agreed not to show the jury the Brown telephone records.

If I weren't tired I would find other issues that you have misrepresented besides those above.

[bobaugust]

I'm grief stricken! Listening to you make excuses for all these healthy, vibrant, and supposedly intelligent people.

1.) You've got an excuse for why the FBI agent, Bodziak, never mentioned on the witness stand that the Bruno Magli shoe sole was the same Silga U2887 shoe sole sold to 19 other shoe brands around the world. This may have made those Bruno Magli shoe soles as common as Nike.

2.) You've got an excuse for Johnnie Cochran's remark that the lawyers and the judge had agreed not to show the jury the Brown telephone records.

If I weren't tired I would find other issues that you have misrepresented besides those above.

Big Ben, maybe you're grief stricken because you've supposedly lived 101 years and still can't seem to grasp the simple reality of these murders. I've not given you excuses, I've given you reasonable explanations for the mistakes some people made and then corrected. Bodziak didn't hide anything regarding the investigation he conducted tracking down the kind of shoes the killer wore. No one knew at the time of the criminal trial that Simpson even owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, all they knew was that Simpson wore the same size shoes the killer wore and that the blood drops found to the left of some of the bloody shoe prints were identified as Simpson's blood. It wasn't until the civil trial that photographs surfaced showing Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. And then Simpson denied the undeniable.

I've explained to you that when Cochran made the remark that the defense wasn't going to show the jury any other exhibits at that point or "show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever" he was trying to prevent the prosecution from showing the jury the explicit crime scene photographs of the victims again. Cochran wanted the prosecution to make their stipulations and rest their case so he could begin his.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben,

1.It wasn't until the civil trial that photographs surfaced showing Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. And then Simpson denied the undeniable.

2. Cochran wanted the prosecution to make their stipulations and rest their case so he could begin his.

bobaugust

bob,
1. It still is extremely suspicious and quite convenient for Bodziak to have those Bruno Magli photos just show up in time for the civil trial but 18 months after he testified in the criminal trial. It's hardly believable with the alleged effort of the FBI, that those shoe photos didn't show up during Bodziak's criminal testimony. Could it be that he and the FBI were intent on covering their behinds, fearful that someone would find out about the 19 other shoe brands that Silga provided the U2887 shoe soles to.

Then there was what many believed to be the thorough trashing of the civil trial photos as fake by the only photo expert out of several to answer all test questions correctly that he was tested for by the Warren Commission investigating the JFK murders.

I'm just saying, bobugust, that the above facts don't look good for either you or FBI agent, Bodziak.

2. Your meaning of Cochran's remark's is very weak and off base, too, bob! Given the nature of Cochran's passionate plea as you see in the video, you can see how intense Cochran appears to be as he wages his ultimately futile argument.

The remark that, "we didn't show- we're not going to show the jury other evidence in this trial, we didn't show them the telephone bills or whatever" is made in an rebuking yet pleading manner. It takes on the form of admonishing the judge for failing to honor a type of quid pro quo, agreement privy to only themselves.

Cochran's remark, uttered in the midst of his Cal. Criminal Code, Sec. 352 argument, regarding the prejudical impact vs. probative value of evidence, has at that moment elevated the phone records to the unimaginable position of being examined for their own prejudicial impact versus probative value.

Any rational person would normally conclude that showing the telephone records to the jury should not have any type of prejudicial impact, however, subsequent to Cochran's passionate argument, they can conclude now that the Brown phone records were prejudicial, and would have a dramatic impact on the jury if they were to see them.

[Jayme K]

The finding of the criminal record came as a result of the resistance of the heretofore mentioned above. I haven't alleged anything about drugs that is not already out in the marketplace. My issue is with the continued resistance to withholding Ron Goldman's criminal file under a California "SNITCH PROTECTION LAW" ; the fire.

Uh, you know that CA GOV CODE 6254 covers far more than protection for "snitches" right? I mean, you're completely aware that there are multiple other provisions of that code that could have protected Goldman's file right?

How do you know that his protection falls specifically under the snitch provision of 6254?

[Big Ben]

Uh, you know that CA GOV CODE 6254 covers far more than protection for "snitches" right? I mean, you're completely aware that there are multiple other provisions of that code that could have protected Goldman's file right?

How do you know that his protection falls specifically under the snitch provision of 6254?

One doesn't know, however, because the confidential informant clause is inclusive within 6254, his continued criminal conduct cited within the docket sheet for case file 91C00362 ,The People of the State of California v. Ronald Lyle Goldman, merits, without further explanation, a presumption of his being protected under California's "Snitch Protection" law.

Although it differs in wording from other state confidential informant laws that I've read, it does carry the similarity of intending to protect individuals that for, whatever reason, have come to being used by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of providing them with criminal information.

To my knowlege, this is the only one that is cited for known confidential informants in the state of California. However, California, I've found, has a number of amiguously worded laws that facilitate covertness yet provides, as in this instance that you've pointed out, an opportunity for deniability.

[bobaugust]

bob,
1. It still is extremely suspicious and quite convenient for Bodziak to have those Bruno Magli photos just show up in time for the civil trial but 18 months after he testified in the criminal trial. It's hardly believable with the alleged effort of the FBI, that those shoe photos didn't show up during Bodziak's criminal testimony. Could it be that he and the FBI were intent on covering their behinds, fearful that someone would find out about the 19 other shoe brands that Silga provided the U2887 shoe soles to.

Then there was what many believed to be the thorough trashing of the civil trial photos as fake by the only photo expert out of several to answer all test questions correctly that he was tested for by the Warren Commission investigating the JFK murders.

I'm just saying, bobugust, that the above facts don't look good for either you or FBI agent, Bodziak.

2. Your meaning of Cochran's remark's is very weak and off base, too, bob! Given the nature of Cochran's passionate plea as you see in the video, you can see how intense Cochran appears to be as he wages his ultimately futile argument.

The remark that, "we didn't show- we're not going to show the jury other evidence in this trial, we didn't show them the telephone bills or whatever" is made in an rebuking yet pleading manner. It takes on the form of admonishing the judge for failing to honor a type of quid pro quo, agreement privy to only themselves.

Cochran's remark, uttered in the midst of his Cal. Criminal Code, Sec. 352 argument, regarding the prejudical impact vs. probative value of evidence, has at that moment elevated the phone records to the unimaginable position of being examined for their own prejudicial impact versus probative value.

Any rational person would normally conclude that showing the telephone records to the jury should not have any type of prejudicial impact, however, subsequent to Cochran's passionate argument, they can conclude now that the Brown phone records were prejudicial, and would have a dramatic impact on the jury if they were to see them.

Big Ben, the fact is that the defense so called expert Robert Groden never examined the over thirty Flammer photographs and negatives. Groden only testified about some so called irregularities he saw in the one Scull photograph he examined. Irregularities that were shown to be based on the fact that he was examining a photocopy of the Scull photograph he had made at Kinkos or scratches from a cameral mechanism

'Richards is a former top FBI photo analyst who refuted claims of defense expert Robert Groden that a photo of Simpson in Bruno Magli shoes was a fraud. He said the photo wasn't altered in any way, and a first-year photography student would have known it."

You may very well be right that there was some kind of agreement not to show telephone bills to the jury since the fact is that no actual telephone bills were shown to jury in the criminal trial. Not the Brown's, not Simpson's, not Kaelin's, not Allan Park's, and not Pilnak's. That fact contradicts your suggestion that the Brown's telephone records would have a dramatic impact on the jury if they were seen.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, the fact is that the defense so called expert Robert Groden never examined the over thirty Flammer photographs and negatives.

That fact contradicts your suggestion that the Brown's telephone records would have a dramatic impact on the jury if they were seen.

bobaugust
I disagree with you concerning the importance of the Brown phone records they are the one certain piece of evidence that either qualifies Simpson to be at the murder site or does not. As crucial as they were as evidence, to be entered by stipulation thus avoiding the jury, lends further suspicion to them.

I was impressed with Groden's analysis, and in spite of a less than aggressive defense in the shoe evidence area by Simpson's civil defense team, I believe that he did an adequate job.

Certainly the Lorenzo brand of Bruno Magli may have been a rare brand, but the problem is that the same FBI agent who testified, Bodziak, later admitted in his own edited college text book that SILGA GOMMA, the shoe sole manufacturer, had sold the same shoe soles they sold to Bruno Magli to another company that supplied them to 19 other shoe brands around the world.

Again, bob, you were, in my opinion, flim flammed by the FBI agent Bodziak's constant reminder that the shoe soles matched a size 12. The question is whose standard of size 12 was he speaking. We've found that size 12 varies around the world. The flim flam came when the FBI agent who had Simpson locked down for a year failed to measure his actual foot. I rather doubt that anyone reading this board would go out and purchase expensive shoes that were almost 3/4 inches shorter than their foot, bob. Simpson's foot (between 12 and 3/4-to-12 and 7/8 inches), Bruno Magli, with Silga U2887 shoe sole 12 and 1/4 inches. The latter is about the exterior of a size 10.

That, in my opinion, should have been the defense's main focus, but when you read the depositions I am of the opinion that the civil defense team anticipated an adverse decision from the start for their client and failed to sustain an aggressive defense.

[Jayme K]

One doesn't know, however, because the confidential informant clause is inclusive within 6254, his continued criminal conduct cited within the docket sheet for case file 91C00362 ,The People of the State of California v. Ronald Lyle Goldman, merits, without further explanation, a presumption of his being protected under California's "Snitch Protection" law.

Although it differs in wording from other state confidential informant laws that I've read, it does carry the similarity of intending to protect individuals that for, whatever reason, have come to being used by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of providing them with criminal information.

To my knowlege, this is the only one that is cited for known confidential informants in the state of California. However, California, I've found, has a number of amiguously worded laws that facilitate covertness yet provides, as in this instance that you've pointed out, an opportunity for deniability.

Thank you for admitting that you have no way to know, you can only presume or guess, that Ron's file is protected under the snitch provision.

With that said though, shame on you for running around this forum and claiming that like it's a fact instead of offering the disclaimer that the snitch provision is only one of many provisions under 6254 and that you don't in fact know which one Ron's protected under.

Wow, you should be banned for that nonsense.

[weezer]

Thank you for admitting that you have no way to know, you can only presume or guess, that Ron's file is protected under the snitch provision.

With that said though, shame on you for running around this forum and claiming that like it's a fact instead of offering the disclaimer that the snitch provision is only one of many provisions under 6254 and that you don't in fact know which one Ron's protected under.

Wow, you should be banned for that nonsense.

good job jayme K!!! :beer:

[tv]

One doesn't know, however, because the confidential informant clause is inclusive within 6254, his continued criminal conduct cited within the docket sheet for case file 91C00362 ,The People of the State of California v. Ronald Lyle Goldman, merits, without further explanation, a presumption of his being protected under California's "Snitch Protection" law.

Although it differs in wording from other state confidential informant laws that I've read, it does carry the similarity of intending to protect individuals that for, whatever reason, have come to being used by law enforcement agencies for the purpose of providing them with criminal information.

To my knowlege, this is the only one that is cited for known confidential informants in the state of California. However, California, I've found, has a number of amiguously worded laws that facilitate covertness yet provides, as in this instance that you've pointed out, an opportunity for deniability.Looks like you're a much worse chess player than I am and now I'm guessing you stink at poker. :biggrin:

Thanks, Jayme K! :)

[Big Ben]

Thank you for admitting that you have no way to know, you can only presume or guess, that Ron's file is protected under the snitch provision.

With that said though, shame on you for running around this forum and claiming that like it's a fact instead of offering the disclaimer that the snitch provision is only one of many provisions under 6254 and that you don't in fact know which one Ron's protected under.

Wow, you should be banned for that nonsense.

Well, I must commend you, Jayme K, for acting as the policeman/watchdog for hyperbole in regard to the Simpson case, do you intend to remain active or go back into retirement after the applause for your prematurely received "high five".

Keep in mind what was previously posted concerning the criminal docket sheet for Ron Goldman case 91C00362, The People v. Ronald Lyle Goldman

"Four separate judges issue over $16,000 in arrest warrants over 3 and1/2 years due to his insensitivity, and lack of respect for orders of the court to appear for arraignment.

Four judges continuously recall bench warrants after Ron is apprehended and brought to court on three different occasions from 1991 through 1992.

The last bench warrant for Ron's arrest remained outstanding for 18 months from Jan. 1993 through seven days after his death on June 20, 1994, when a judge recalled the final warrant, a $2,500 bench warrant for his arrest."

I don't think that it is hyperbole for one to draw a conclusion based upon the above information, that is publicly available, in Ron's criminal docket sheet that his conduct is ,at minimum, considered extremely erratic, and that the judges appear, at minimum, to be showing abnormal favoritism towards Goldman.

The erratic criminal conduct and perceived judicial favoritism would lead rational people to conclude that, if access is denied to examine his criminal record pursuant to sec. 6254, then the only provisions under 6254 consistent with his unusually dysfunctional behaviour in the criminal docket sheet, to again many rational people, would be the clause that protects 'confidential informants'.

I'd have to disagree with you in regard to your perception that "I'm running around" casting aspersions on Goldman. The topic arose in regard to the alleged lack of due diligence on the part of media in their examination of all of the issues associated with the Simpson case. They told me about Simpson's father being a homosexual but no one to my knowledge has done any background examination on Ron Goldman.

Given the behaviour of Ron in his criminal docket sheet, my conclusion that it is protected under a "Snitch Protection" law is consistent, because that is what 6254 does. The additional provisions of sec.6254, in my opinion, are used simply as camouflague and are not unlike the routine of colorful bands that confuse or distinguish the venomous coral snake from the harmless milk snake. If the behaviour displayed by Goldman is consistent with danger, I'm not obligated to soft pedal it.

In my opinion, you do a disservice, in your attempt to seek applause, from those with limited faculty to search for the truth and to avoid dangerous pitfalls.

[Jayme K]

Well, I must commend you, Jayme K, for acting as the policeman/watchdog for hyperbole in regard to the Simpson case, do you intend to remain active or go back into retirement after the applause for your prematurely received "high five".

Keep in mind what was previously posted concerning the criminal docket sheet for Ron Goldman case 91C00362, The People v. Ronald Lyle Goldman

"Four separate judges issue over $16,000 in arrest warrants over 3 and1/2 years due to his insensitivity, and lack of respect for orders of the court to appear for arraignment.

Four judges continuously recall bench warrants after Ron is apprehended and brought to court on three different occasions from 1991 through 1992.

The last bench warrant for Ron's arrest remained outstanding for 18 months from Jan. 1993 through seven days after his death on June 20, 1994, when a judge recalled the final warrant, a $2,500 bench warrant for his arrest."

I don't think that it is hyperbole for one to draw a conclusion based upon the above information, that is publicly available, in Ron's criminal docket sheet that his conduct is ,at minimum, considered extremely erratic, and that the judges appear, at minimum, to be showing abnormal favoritism towards Goldman.

The erratic criminal conduct and perceived judicial favoritism would lead rational people to conclude that, if access is denied to examine his criminal record pursuant to sec. 6254, then the only provisions under 6254 consistent with his unusually dysfunctional behaviour in the criminal docket sheet, to again many rational people, would be the clause that protects 'confidential informants'.

I'd have to disagree with you in regard to your perception that "I'm running around" casting aspersions on Goldman. The topic arose in regard to the alleged lack of due diligence on the part of media in their examination of all of the issues associated with the Simpson case. They told me about Simpson's father being a homosexual but no one to my knowledge has done any background examination on Ron Goldman.

Given the behaviour of Ron in his criminal docket sheet, my conclusion that it is protected under a "Snitch Protection" law is consistent, because that is what 6254 does. The additional provisions of sec.6254, in my opinion, are used simply as camouflague and are not unlike the routine of colorful bands that confuse or distinguish the venomous coral snake from the harmless milk snake. If the behaviour displayed by Goldman is consistent with danger, I'm not obligated to soft pedal it.

In my opinion, you do a disservice, in your attempt to seek applause, from those with limited faculty to search for the truth and to avoid dangerous pitfalls.

It's time for you to quit blowing smoke and purposely misleading those with limited faculty to search for the truth.

Why weren't you upfront about the multiple provisions Ben? I can tell you why already, it's because you favor a different scenario and in your almost comical desire to have people believe the same that you do you have chosen to leave out very important facts. Facts that allow others to have more of an ability to seek out truths.

Maybe Ron is protected under the snitch provision, and maybe he's not ... as you stated we "don't know" but instead of admitting that you don;t really know and still laying out your reasoning behind why you think he might be, you chose to make it sound like there was no other option.

So yeah, I'll take my applause and be happy with exposing your misleading claims.

[weezer]

It's time for you to quit blowing smoke and purposely misleading those with limited faculty to search for the truth.

Why weren't you upfront about the multiple provisions Ben? I can tell you why already, it's because you favor a different scenario and in your almost comical desire to have people believe the same that you do you have chosen to leave out very important facts. Facts that allow others to have more of an ability to seek out truths.

Maybe Ron is protected under the snitch provision, and maybe he's not ... as you stated we "don't know" but instead of admitting that you don;t really know and still laying out your reasoning behind why you think he might be, you chose to make it sound like there was no other option.

So yeah, I'll take my applause and be happy with exposing your misleading claims.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Big Ben]

It's time for you to quit blowing smoke and purposely misleading those with limited faculty to search for the truth.

Maybe Ron is protected under the snitch provision, and maybe he's not ... as you stated we "don't know" but instead of admitting that you don;t really know and still laying out your reasoning behind why you think he might be, you chose to make it sound like there was no other option


Well, Jayme K, I've already laid out my case as to why I think that he is. If he's not, let them prove that he's not.

As I said before, I perceive those additional clauses to be no more than camouflague. The dysfunctional criminal conduct and flight from arraignment and subsequent favorable treatment found in the criminal docket sheet have allowed me to call it as I perceive it to be, a protection of a confidential informant. I'm not obligated to make all of the disclaimers that California has placed under its' "Snitch Protection" law.

Based upon my experiences this is how confidential informants act in the public, with a sense of impunity and reckless invincibility, as it relates to the law. They do so, because they are protected from the law, and that's how I called it.

If you disagree, you simply disagree, but I have no further obligation, based upon his reckless conduct, to arrive at any other conclusion or to preface it with disclaimers to pacify you or anyone else.

In the meantime we will continue to press the State of California to show cause as to their reason for restricting access to his criminal file.

[martin II]

my question is :
If ron goldman had some kind of regular traffic activity in traffic court, why would it not be possible for his records to be available for the public view as i believe all others would be?

martin II

[Big Ben]

my question is :
If ron goldman had some kind of regular traffic activity in traffic court, why would it not be possible for his records to be available for the public view as i believe all others would be?

martin II

Duh! Thank you!

[martin II]

Tmz has for the last month published driving infractions/rocords of several male and female celebraties for public consumption. CA must be releasing ticket/ court history of almost anyone.Why not Ron.

martin II

[bobaugust]

I disagree with you concerning the importance of the Brown phone records they are the one certain piece of evidence that either qualifies Simpson to be at the murder site or does not. As crucial as they were as evidence, to be entered by stipulation thus avoiding the jury, lends further suspicion to them.

I was impressed with Groden's analysis, and in spite of a less than aggressive defense in the shoe evidence area by Simpson's civil defense team, I believe that he did an adequate job.

Certainly the Lorenzo brand of Bruno Magli may have been a rare brand, but the problem is that the same FBI agent who testified, Bodziak, later admitted in his own edited college text book that SILGA GOMMA, the shoe sole manufacturer, had sold the same shoe soles they sold to Bruno Magli to another company that supplied them to 19 other shoe brands around the world.

Again, bob, you were, in my opinion, flim flammed by the FBI agent Bodziak's constant reminder that the shoe soles matched a size 12. The question is whose standard of size 12 was he speaking. We've found that size 12 varies around the world. The flim flam came when the FBI agent who had Simpson locked down for a year failed to measure his actual foot. I rather doubt that anyone reading this board would go out and purchase expensive shoes that were almost 3/4 inches shorter than their foot, bob. Simpson's foot (between 12 and 3/4-to-12 and 7/8 inches), Bruno Magli, with Silga U2887 shoe sole 12 and 1/4 inches. The latter is about the exterior of a size 10.

That, in my opinion, should have been the defense's main focus, but when you read the depositions I am of the opinion that the civil defense team anticipated an adverse decision from the start for their client and failed to sustain an aggressive defense.

Big Ben, the Brown's telephone records as well as Allan Park's telephone records, Kato Kaelin's telephone records, Pilnak's telephone records, and Simpson's telephone records simply document the times witnesses testified to regarding events that happened that night, not the other way around. The evidence that tells us Simpson was at the murder scene was the physical evidence found there. The most important being his fresh blood he left on the walkway and the rear gate, in his Bronco mixed with both victims blood, and outside and inside his house. As well as Nicole's fresh blood and fiber evidence found on Simpson's socks that link him to the murders. As well as eye witness testimony that places Simpson and his Bronco on Bundy that night and witness testimony that tells us his Bronco wasn't at Rockingham at the time of the murders.

The undisputed fact is that over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders all show Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that are consistent with having left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. One of these photographs was published in monthly publication seven months before the murders.

Regardless of what you think Simpson's foot measured the fact is that Bodziak directly compared size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with a pair of Simpson's size 12 Reeboks that Simpson claimed he was wearing the day of the murders and found both the external sole dimensions, linear dimension, and the internal measurement of the shoes were virtually identical.

What you and I evidently disagree with is the reality that if the Brown's telephone bills documented a telephone call that could prove Simpson could not have committed the murders, Cochran and company would have done everything possible both privately and publicly to make that fact known. If Simpson's feet were too big to have left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy, Cochran and company would have done everything possible both privately and publicly to make that known. None of Simpson's attorneys or even Simpson himself ever made, suggested or inferred either of those things because the reality is they have no basis in fact.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Tmz has for the last month published driving infractions/rocords of several male and female celebraties for public consumption. CA must be releasing ticket/ court history of almost anyone.Why not Ron.

martin II

Maybe they are showing respect for a young man that was murdered & like most reasonable thinking people, they don't see any point in releasing his traffic history :rolleyes:

[Big Ben]

Maybe they are showing respect for a young man that was murdered & like most reasonable thinking people, they don't see any point in releasing his traffic history :rolleyes:

Well, I'm shocked by your position it is utterly, unethical, unamerican, and truthfully speaking, unconstitutional. Your response reminds me of those few brave German citizens who were denounced for having the audacity to question the secretive Gestapo tactics of Nazi Germany.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben ,

bobaugust

Big Ben, the Brown's telephone records as well as Allan Park's telephone records, Kato Kaelin's telephone records, Pilnak's telephone records, and Simpson's telephone records simply document the times witnesses testified to regarding events that happened that night.....Wrong, bob! The Brown Phone records when applied to the departure time from the Mezzaluna establish whether they were able to arrive home in time to make the crucial 9:37 PM phone call back to Brentwood. All travel authorities, i.e. Mapquest, AAA(CAL), AAA(IDAHO), CHIPs, CalTrans traffic volumes and Highway zone construction data, say NO! for the night of 06/12/94.

The undisputed fact is that over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders all show Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that are consistent with having left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.....The issue was adequately challenged by a photo expert as being fraudulent, they were more than likely manufactured to cover deleted FBI information of 20 different shoe brands bearing the same U2887 shoe sole..

Bodziak directly compared size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with a pair of (?????) size 12 Reeboks that....a corrupt police department had given to him from who knows what pile of tennis shoes.

What you and I evidently disagree with is the reality that if the Brown's telephone bills documented a telephone call that could prove Simpson could not have committed the murders, Cochran and company would have done everything possible both privately and publicly to make that fact known.....Maybe that is what the late Cochran attempted to do when he talked about their agreement not to show the telephone records to the jury.

[socaldiva]

Well, I'm shocked by your position it is utterly, unethical, unamerican, and truthfully speaking, unconstitutional. Your response reminds me of those few brave German citizens who were denounced for having the audacity to question the secretive Gestapo tactics of Nazi Germany.

Since when are you an authority on what is American & constitiutional? Your posts seem to indicate that you are not an American. No surprise that you are dragging Nazi Germany into the conversation, nor are your personal remarks of any surprise. There is nothing unethical about having respect for the dead. :rolleyes:

[Big Ben]

Since when are you an authority on what is American & constitiutional? Your posts seem to indicate that you are not an American. No surprise that you are dragging Nazi Germany into the conversation, nor are your personal remarks of any surprise. There is nothing unethical about having respect for the dead. :rolleyes:

Strange remarks, from a strange individual! The issue about respecting the dead is a non-issue here. No one is disrespecting the dead, we are simply exercising a right granted, in this country, to examine all of the evidence and all of the principals associated with this matter.

Ron Goldman is not the first, nor will he be the last, to die and have researchers, investigators, historians and others interested enough in examining his complete history/background. That is called, due diligence, something that the media appeared to care little about, and obviously but not unexpectedly, you do too.

[socaldiva]

Strange remarks, from a strange individual! The issue about respecting the dead is a non-issue here. No one is disrespecting the dead, we are simply exercising a right granted, in this country, to examine all of the evidence and all of the principals associated with this matter.

Ron Goldman is not the first, nor will he be the last, to die and have researchers, investigators, historians and others interested enough in examining his complete history/background. That is called, due diligence, something that the media appeared to care little about, and obviously but not unexpectedly, you do too.

I'd say the strange individual is the one that is preoccupied with some traffic violations he thinks Ron Goldman may have had that are being withheld from the public for some nefarious reason. ;)

[Big Ben]

I'd say the strange individual is the one that is preoccupied with some traffic violations he thinks Ron Goldman may have had that are being withheld from the public for some nefarious reason. ;)

You're the one that is speculating about whether Ron may have had traffic tickets or not. I know what traffic tickets he had from examining the criminal docket sheet in case file 91C00362.

It's not the traffic tickets that I was concerned with, it was the abnormal behaviour of Goldman associated with those traffic tickets to earn a $10,000 felony warrant along with $6,000 more in bench and arrest warrants for ignoring multiple judges' orders to appear for arraignment.

I am equally interested in the inexplicable favoritism that he was afforded by 4judges that recalled the warrants after each arrest. I was wondering what rational thinking individual would leave the court after a judge has suspended their license and go right back out on the highway and incur another citation for driving at a reckless rate of speed knowingly with a suspended license.

Your blind adulation for Mr. Goldman clouds what I know to be your better judgment. Let's examine the record so that we all can move on, your feable attempt to dismiss this type of dysfunctional criminal misconduct I doubt even fools you. In your heart I would speculate that there is a desire to get to the bottom of this so that you may rest in peace. I would demand, if I were you, to have a copy, as I do, of first the criminal docket sheet 91C00362. Then if you are still baffled by its contents, I would encourage that you vehemently call for the State of California to release Goldman's thick criminal file.

[martin II]

Maby someone in opposition to big bens request for rons records can answer me original question.

Why would ron's court records not be available to the public as most other
traffic court records are? Why would ron's records be protected by some special CA code.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Big Ben, the Brown's telephone records as well as Allan Park's telephone records, Kato Kaelin's telephone records, Pilnak's telephone records, and Simpson's telephone records simply document the times witnesses testified to regarding events that happened that night.....Wrong, bob! The Brown Phone records when applied to the departure time from the Mezzaluna establish whether they were able to arrive home in time to make the crucial 9:37 PM phone call back to Brentwood. All travel authorities, i.e. Mapquest, AAA(CAL), AAA(IDAHO), CHIPs, CalTrans traffic volumes and Highway zone construction data, say NO! for the night of 06/12/94.

The undisputed fact is that over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders all show Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that are consistent with having left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.....The issue was adequately challenged by a photo expert as being fraudulent, they were more than likely manufactured to cover deleted FBI information of 20 different shoe brands bearing the same U2887 shoe sole..

Bodziak directly compared size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with a pair of (?????) size 12 Reeboks that....a corrupt police department had given to him from who knows what pile of tennis shoes.

What you and I evidently disagree with is the reality that if the Brown's telephone bills documented a telephone call that could prove Simpson could not have committed the murders, Cochran and company would have done everything possible both privately and publicly to make that fact known.....Maybe that is what the late Cochran attempted to do when he talked about their agreement not to show the telephone records to the jury.

Big Ben, the telephone records document the time that Juditha Brown called the Restaurant after arriving back home from dinner that night. Juditha Brown testified that they started that drive home at 8:30. It is certainty not impossible for the Browns to have made that drive in just over an hour.

The only photograph that Groden challenged was the Scull photograph and his challenge was completely discredited. Groden never examined the over thirty authenticated Flammer photographs and negatives. The Flammer photographs proved the authenticity of the Scull photograph.

Your comments about Simpson's Reeboks have no credibility. Simpson's Reeboks were entered into evidence in the civil trial.

November 30, 1996
Q. I place before you what's been marked 404, and represent that as a matter of record these are a pair of Reebok shoes, belonging to Mr. Simpson, that he gave to Detective Lange.
(The instrument herein described as Mr. Simpson's Reebok shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404.)

The reality is that Cochran had no problem raising and making known any issue no matter how trivial if he thought it might help his case. If he or any of his team or the civil trial team of attorneys had any belief that your claim regarding a fictitious 11:00 telephone call or your claim that Simpson's feet were too large to have left the bloody shoe prints had any inkling of credibility they would have raised it not only in court but they would have screamed it from the roof tops. It never happened because your claims have absolutely no basis in fact or reality.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, the telephone records document the time that Juditha Brown called the Restaurant after arriving back home from dinner that night. Juditha Brown testified that they started that drive home at 8:30. It is certainty not impossible for the Browns to have made that drive in just over an hour.....bob, There is no record of any certified telephone records that document the time of that call. None were given to the jury and the records indicate that none was deposited with the custodian of records. Those that you have so unabashedly touted are encumbered with irrgularities in regard to fonts, (size of type), in specifically the critical 9:37 PM time designation on the phone bill. Your proclivity to ignore the need for production of the certified record only indicates your heightened insecurity regarding their voracity.

The only photograph that Groden challenged was the Scull photograph and his challenge was completely discredited. Groden never examined the over thirty authenticated Flammer photographs and negatives. The Flammer photographs proved the authenticity of the Scull photograph....discredited only in the eyes of those, like you, who'd rather accept denial than work towards seeking the truth.

Your comments about Simpson's Reeboks have no credibility. Simpson's Reeboks were entered into evidence in the civil trial....Says you, you have no way of knowing what shoes were given to a lazy FBI agent who failed to gather his own independent evidence, but accepted that given to him by a corrupt L.A. police department which is still under U.S. Justice Department scrutiny because of manipulated and planted evidence admittedly used to convict thousands of innocent men, many who were unjustly locked away for years, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The reality is that Cochran had no problem making known any issue if he thought it might help his case. If he or the civil trial team of attorneys had any belief that your claim regarding a fictitious 11:00 telephone call, they would have raised it not only in court but they would have screamed it from the roof tops.....bob, Your viewpoint is terminally myopic and does not factor in the possibility, or in this case, the probability of malfeasance or conspiracy, based upon Cochran's undeniable Bloody photo plea before the judge for fair exchange regarding the clandestine and highly suspicious Brown phone records.

bobaugust

Stop the procrastination and denial, bobaugust.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Your blind adulation for Mr. Goldman clouds what I know to be your better judgment. Let's examine the record so that we all can move on, your feable attempt to dismiss this type of dysfunctional criminal misconduct I doubt even fools you. In your heart I would speculate that there is a desire to get to the bottom of this so that you may rest in peace.

Someone that doesn't buy into your assertions has "blind adulation for Mr Goldman"? How odd that it translates as such to you.

The only thing that is "feable" is your attempts to have everyone here lap up what you offer as the truth.

As for my "resting in peace", it doe not hinge on traffic violations Ron Goldman may or may not have had. :rolleyes:

Ron Goldman's traffic violations have nothing to do with the who or why of these murders. The who is Simpson & the why is that Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[bobaugust]

Stop the procrastination and denial, bobaugust.

I'm sorry but the only one in denial here is you Big Ben. Denial of the reality of the evidence that proves Simpson was the killer and denial of the fact that none of Simpson's attorneys from either of his trials support or even acknowledge your delusional claims and beliefs.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Ron Goldman's traffic violations have nothing to do with the who or why of these murders. The who is Simpson & the why is that Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As far as your first premise is concerned, may be so or maybe not, relative to Ron's traffic violations. We just don't know until we are allowed to examine his criminal file?

Simpson appears to have been in the back of a chauffer driven limousine at the same time that his wife was alive and well talking to her mother on the telephone.

What is your point?

Is it that investigators should abandon any inquiry regarding Goldman because of your opinion that all of his inexplicable and odd conduct associated with these traffic tickets, especially the $16,000 in multiple arrest warrants, is much to do about nothing?

No one associated with this case should get a pass as far as a thorogh investigation is concerned.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Simpson appears to have been in the back of a chauffer driven limousine at the same time that his wife was alive and well talking to her mother on the telephone.


Wrong. Even the defense didn't claim that.

[Big Ben]

Wrong. Even the defense didn't claim that.

Ohhhh! I see now, it's against the rules for any organization to do any independent investigative research, regarding the Simpson matter, beyond what was stated in the courtroom in the so called "Trial of the century", right? And anyone that does so is guilty of being a heretic or worse treason, right, madame diva?

So if we discover lawyer malfeasance regarding unlawful collaberation between attorneys on both sides of the table that's simply historically implausible and unheard of, and we shouldn't even consider that such a thing historically could ever or did ever occur?

Since you have conveniently avoided Goldman's continued dysfunctional activity of disobeyance of judicial orders to appear in court, based upon your rule or whomever's rules here, we should simply ignore doing further inquiry regarding Goldman's criminal file, right?

Now, if I've missed anything regarding these rules, I'm greatly sorry, so please make sure that from now on I'm acting in accordance with your logic so I can get an understanding where you're coming from.

I probably need only to remember the hospital nurses' rules for playing cards and checkers when visiting friends on the padded 7th floor. Remember, Always! Always! Let them win.

[martin II]

Ohhhh! I see now, it's against the rules for any organization to do any independent investigative research, regarding the Simpson matter, beyond what was stated in the courtroom in the so called "Trial of the century", right? And anyone that does so is guilty of being a heretic or worse treason, right, madame diva?

So if we discover lawyer malfeasance regarding unlawful collaberation between attorneys on both sides of the table that's simply historically implausible and unheard of, and we shouldn't even consider that such a thing historically could ever or did ever occur?

Since you have conveniently avoided Goldman's continued dysfunctional activity of disobeyance of judicial orders to appear in court, based upon your rule or whomever's rules here, we should simply ignore doing further inquiry regarding Goldman's criminal file, right?

Now, if I've missed anything regarding these rules, I'm greatly sorry, so please make sure that from now on I'm acting in accordance with your logic so I can get an understanding where you're coming from.

I probably need only to remember the hospital nurses' rules for playing cards and checkers when visiting friends on the padded 7th floor. Remember, Always! Always! Let them win.:beer: :beer:

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Ohhhh! I see now, it's against the rules for any organization to do any independent investigative research, regarding the Simpson matter, beyond what was stated in the courtroom in the so called "Trial of the century", right? And anyone that does so is guilty of being a heretic or worse treason


No, apparently you don't see. The point was that Simpson spent 10 million dollars on his criminal defense & if they could have put him in the limo at the time of the phone call between Nicole & her Mother, they would have done so. They couldn't & they stipulated to the phone records.

If you think you can prove something that Orenthal couldn't with 10 million dollars, have at it.

[Big Ben]

No, apparently you don't see. The point was that Simpson spent 10 million dollars on his criminal defense & if they could have put him in the limo at the time of the phone call between Nicole & her Mother, they would have done so. They couldn't & they stipulated to the phone records.

If you think you can prove something that Orenthal couldn't with 10 million dollars, have at it.

Typical American mentality! More is always better!

Did they really put their heart into their work, or did they simply give you a mock trial. It appears to be to hard for you to fathom that such a thing would ever take place, but as I said to you before, history has shown that it has. When such culprits are caught, the court has spoken very sharply against those who would collaberate to trespass into the domain of the court, to either usurp the excusive right of the trier of law, the judge or the trier of fact, the jury.

Instead of continuing down this path, I'd rather ask you what do you think that Cochran is referring to in the below YouTube excerpt when he says right after pleading not to have the jurors exposed to the bloody photos,

"We didn't--We're not going to show the jury the phone bills or whatever"!

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Typical American mentality!

I don't know what country you are from, but this case was heard in an American court :patriot:

[Big Ben]

I don't know what country you are from, but this case was heard in an American court :patriot:

Quit scope shifting and answer the question, bub! And don't give me that, "I'm trying to make you buy something" crap! Just answer the question, if fear hasn't paralyzed you at this stage.

"What do you think that Cochran is referring to in the below YouTube excerpt when he says right after pleading not to have the jurors exposed to the bloody photos,

"We didn't--We're not going to show the jury the phone bills or whatever"!

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[socaldiva]

Quit scope shifting and answer the question, bub! And don't give me that, "I'm trying to make you buy something" crap! Just answer the question, if fear hasn't paralyzed you at this stage.

"What do you think that Cochran is referring to in the below YouTube excerpt when he says right after pleading not to have the jurors exposed to the bloody photos,

"We didn't--We're not going to show the jury the phone bills or whatever"!

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

"Scope shifting"? Who said anything about you "trying to make me buy something" in that post? Stick to the posts at hand, as offered!

"Paralyzed by fear"? I'm not the one that's offering up a production for sale on this website, YOU are, so don't act as though you have an unbiased interest in this case. It looks to me as though your interest is in making money off of your peculiar take on this trial.

As for the youtube you offer up, gee...it's been altered, so I can't properly assess it. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[Jayme K]

Maby someone in opposition to big bens request for rons records can answer me original question.

Why would ron's court records not be available to the public as most other
traffic court records are? Why would ron's records be protected by some special CA code.

martin II

Do the research on the CA code that Big Ben's referring to and the many provisions that fall under it.

The question doesn't have a firm answer because no one's saying or releasing the file but that's the point - none of us know why he's protected but it's wrong for someone to pretend that the only possible option is under a snitch provision because that's a blatantly false claim and it's as simple as that.

[Jayme K]

No one associated with this case should get a pass as far as a thorogh investigation is concerned.

I hear you! But where the problem comes into play here, for me at least, is the fact that you acted like the snitch provision is the only one possible to have protection under and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't disclose that right off the bat. It makes me question your motives.

And I think were the shoe on the other foot you'd probably wonder the same.

[martin II]

I hear you! But where the problem comes into play here, for me at least, is the fact that you acted like the snitch provision is the only one possible to have protection under and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't disclose that right off the bat. It makes me question your motives.

And I think were the shoe on the other foot you'd probably wonder the same.

Big Ben
What i am thinking is that anyone that dissagree with your post on Rons sealed records must have information contrary to your post.

If rons records are sealed there must be a reason, however strange as he was in some peoples eyes just a waiter.

One poster made comments that indicated he had knowledge of this CA provision. For those that find it hard to believe ron was a snitch working in a resturatnt with a reputatrion for distributing coke, maby he can tell all why rons records are sealed at all. Normally the courts don't seal traffic records of a common person like a waiter.

imo
martin II

[Big Ben]

Big Ben

One poster made comments that indicated he had knowledge of this CA provision. For those that find it hard to believe ron was a snitch working in a resturatnt with a reputatrion for distributing coke, maby he can tell all why rons records are sealed at all. Normally the courts don't seal traffic records of a common person like a waiter.

imo
martin II


Goldman's inexplicable criminal misconduct after the fact is something they simply don't want to deal with, bold conduct, mind you, that is totally consistent with criminals that are shielded as confidential informants by law enforcement. They know that none of the other clauses fit this type of behaviour but they will attempt to beguile decent individuals like you, Martin, in an attempt to forestall the inevitable, the heightened and formal demand that these records be produced.

Some stall because they just can't believe that the golden angels of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC wouldn't be, couldn't be, just can't be wrong in what they told us. My god, these Brooks Brothers Suit wearing, Wing Tip shoe having, American news journalists. They couldn't possibly have got it wrong. Better keep Old Big preoccupied with tomfoolery until we can verify if what ole' Big Ben is saying is true or not. Man, (lol) What a bunch!

For the record, let me correct you, Martin. I've never said that Ron Goldman was a snitch, though his sense of impunity reflects the conduct in the community of those that are. I said that he was protected under a California "Snitch Protection" law, and it so happens that it is the only one that we are aware of in CA. It is ludicrist, tomfoolery, for anyone to site other statutory provisions under that law that are applicable to Ron Goldman's dysfunctional conduct. I would bet that few, if any of these posters, has run up innumerable arrest warrants for fleeng the law. $16,000 in 3 years and still counting as we await a response from authorities regarding further requests for review.

These are discernable facts, they can contact the courthouse and do the due diligence that Tom Brokaw and others failed, for some reason, to do. They know in their heart the implications of Johnnie Cochran's YouTube remark, but the truth burns deeply and imbeds its image deep into the psyche, especially when it goes against the grain of arrogant acceptance of continually told untruths. They could make demands, that sleepless nights call for, but they won't. The sheep never make demands of the sheep herder, Martin.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
They know in their heart the implications of Johnnie Cochran's YouTube remark, but the truth burns deeply and imbeds its image deep into the psyche, especially when it goes against the grain of arrogant acceptance of continually told untruths. They could make demands, that sleepless nights call for, but they won't. The sheep never make demands of the sheep herder, Martin.

Please don't profess to know what is in my heart. The only truth that "burns deeply & imbeds in my psyche" is that Orenthal is a double murderer & a continual blot on society, who always manages to escape punishment.

Ron's history is irrelevant to these murders, as Simpson is the only one that left any forensic evidence at the crime scene. No drug dealers, no ghosts, just Simpson. Your sheep remark is just silly & I see it as an attempt to dismiss people that don't subscribe to your theories.

You really think people have "sleepless nights" over these murders? WOW! I certainly don't......

[Riviera]

Let's stay on topic please. Just a reminder - Infractions/Warnings are given for the following reasons ---->

Infractions
Infractions are given for more notable violations of rules and standards. Typical infractions include

Lack of civility (1 pt)
Insulting other members (2pts)
Use of inappropriate language (2pts)
Bringing PMs or Reps to the forum (1-2 pts)
Outing nics and real world ids (1-2 pts)
Bring conversation begun elsewhere to CL (1 pt)
Linking to a blog or other MB site (1pt)

Thank you
R

[martin II]

Do the research on the CA code that Big Ben's referring to and the many provisions that fall under it.

The question doesn't have a firm answer because no one's saying or releasing the file but that's the point - none of us know why he's protected but it's wrong for someone to pretend that the only possible option is under a snitch provision because that's a blatantly false claim and it's as simple as that.

Jamie
you are the one that informed all here that there were different sub sections
under that CA code that Rons records courld be found in. It is my opinion
that if you haven this knowledge, it is your obligation to DO THE RESEARCH and present it to the thread NOT ME as i have made no CLAIM.
Imo
martin II

[weezer]

Jamie
you are the one that informed all here that there were different sub sections
under that CA code that Rons records courld be found in. It is my opinion
that if you haven this knowledge, it is your obligation to DO THE RESEARCH and present it to the thread NOT ME as i have made no CLAIM.
Imo
martin II

what is there to present? Odd that you didn't/haven't asked ben to provide a link to his claim with regard to the 'snitch' portion. :shrug: The Code is what it is and very easily researched if anyone needs clarification. imo

[Beebee]

Big Ben, your claim is incorrect. Schwab did not change his story. Schwab never told the police the time of 11:15 P.M.

The police woke Schwab up at about 5:00 A.M. the morning after the murders to interview him. Schwab testified after they told him that the Akita was somehow connected to a homicide he was shocked and scared. He said he wasn't thinking clearly when he first mentioned 11:30 and then said no it must have been around 11:00. After the police left, Schwab went back to sleep. When woke up he was able to recall what had happened based on television shows that were on that night. He recalled that he had left his house to walk his dog at 10:30, came across the Akita at approximately 10:55 and returned home with the both dogs at about 11:05. Schwab then called the police to correct his statement.

In his testimony Schwab also told how he flagged down a passing police car as the Akita was following him, and told the officer about finding the lost dog. The officer took his name, address, and telephone number telling him he would contact the animal shelter and that Schwab should continue on home with the dog. In the criminal trial Officer Benjamin Jones came forward after hearing about Schwab's testimony and realizing he was that officer. He was interviewed by the prosecutors and they obtained a copy of the report he made at the time. The interview and the report were given to the defense and Jones was available to testify. Since there was no dispute about the times Schwab testified to by Simpson's attorneys, Jones was never called.

bobaugust


I find this odd. With the massive publicity with the murders how did officer Benjamin Jones only "realize" he saw a witness in the Bundy investigation after the trial started. That makes no sense and I don't buy it.

Okay, so he was supposed to call animal control so the citizen (Schwab) wouldn't be stuck with a large stray dog.... so when did Benjamin make the call to animal control??? Where are those phone records? Who took the report at animal control? What time did they take the report? Were they already closed and that's why Schwab was still stuck with the dog and walking around with it??

IIRC- didn't Schwab also show the dog to his neighbor? What time was that?


Hey Big Ben I bought your video a couple years ago :D

I have a question.... where are the Browns phone records? Have they refused to put this long argued issue to rest or what??

[weezer]

OMG -- it's a vast conspiracy -- now the dog is in on it! :D

[martin II]

what is there to present? Odd that you didn't/haven't asked ben to provide a link to his claim with regard to the 'snitch' portion. :shrug: The Code is what it is and very easily researched if anyone needs clarification. imo

wezer
as you can see i was responding to a post by jamie
thanks
martin II

[weezer]

wezer
as you can see i was responding to a post by jamie
thanks
martin II

oh -- well, when I read jayme's post, it made me wonder why you had never asked ben for a link to HIS post regarding Ron being protected as a 'snitch' -- I'd still like to know the answer to that.

[weezer]

I find this odd. With the massive publicity with the murders how did officer Benjamin Jones only "realize" he saw a witness in the Bundy investigation after the trial started. That makes no sense and I don't buy it.

Okay, so he was supposed to call animal control so the citizen (Schwab) wouldn't be stuck with a large stray dog.... so when did Benjamin make the call to animal control??? Where are those phone records? Who took the report at animal control? What time did they take the report? Were they already closed and that's why Schwab was still stuck with the dog and walking around with it??

IIRC- didn't Schwab also show the dog to his neighbor? What time was that?


Hey Big Ben I bought your video a couple years ago :D

I have a question.... where are the Browns phone records? Have they refused to put this long argued issue to rest or what??

all of the questions regarding the dog are answered in testimony from the trials.

they say one is born every minute! ;)

the Brown's phone records are a non-issue.

imo

[martin II]

oh -- well, when I read jayme's post, it made me wonder why you had never asked ben for a link to HIS post regarding Ron being protected as a 'snitch' -- I'd still like to know the answer to that.

i was responding to a post by jamie

martinII

[weezer]

i was responding to a post by jamie

martinII

I understand that -- and I'm responding to your post.

[martin II]

i was responding to a post by jamie

martinII

WEEZER
Sorry you caused yourself to wonder.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

WEEZER
Sorry you caused yourself to wonder.
imo
martin II

not a problem -- guess you don't want to answer why you've never demanded the link from ben regarding his absurd post about Ron's traffic ticket record. Go figure.

imo

[socaldiva]

OMG -- it's a vast conspiracy -- now the dog is in on it! :D

Or Animal Control, another "governmental agency" :eek:

[martin II]

not a problem -- guess you don't want to answer why you've never demanded the link from ben regarding his absurd post about Ron's traffic ticket record. Go figure.

imo

My post to jaime did not involve you so no need for you to wonder or guess.

imo
martinII

[weezer]

My post to jaime did not involve you so no need for you to wonder or guess.

imo
martinII

Then I'll ask you the question: why didn't you demand a link from ben when he made his outlandish statement regarding Ron's traffic record?

[Big Ben]

I have a question.... where are the Browns phone records? Have they refused to put this long argued issue to rest or what??

Answer to Q1: Still within the GTE/Verizon Archives in San Angelo, TX.

Answer to Q2: As far as we are concerned they have not put this question to rest. Based upon my knowledge I would say that they are quite concerned that the issue may arrise in the news media once again. We certainly intend to continue to press the issue at the appropriate chosen time.

[Beebee]

Socaldiva,

I'm not implying a conspiracy with animal control :rolleyes:

Given how important and tight the timeline was in this case, it is a valid question as to what time animal control was called by the officer.

If animal control couldn't be reached-- maybe due to the time lets say, then that could be important.

The questions are valid, and if you and Weezer don't know the answers so be it. Maybe somebody else will.

Big Ben,

The problem I have with the Browns and the phone records is the Browns themselves have surely seen the records and could access them anytime, so THEY know the truth. If they had evidence that exonerated OJ in their daughters death, I'm hard pressed to believe they would cover that up, if for no other reason than to keep the investigation open as to who killed Nicole and Ron.

Was Glen Rogers ever ruled out as a suspect?

[martin II]

Socaldiva,

I'm not implying a conspiracy with animal control :rolleyes:

Given how important and tight the timeline was in this case, it is a valid question as to what time animal control was called by the officer.

If animal control couldn't be reached-- maybe due to the time lets say, then that could be important.

The questions are valid, and if you and Weezer don't know the answers so be it. Maybe somebody else will.

Big Ben,

The problem I have with the Browns and the phone records is the Browns themselves have surely seen the records and could access them anytime, so THEY know the truth. If they had evidence that exonerated OJ in their daughters death, I'm hard pressed to believe they would cover that up, if for no other reason than to keep the investigation open as to who killed Nicole and Ron.

Was Glen Rogers ever ruled out as a suspect?


Beebee

Thanks for your post and your questions.

Some times when people have no answer to valid questions,there can be efforts to derail the quesitons by making jokes.

I am not sure le did any investigation of G Rogers. There were reports that he
had contact or was in nicole company just prior to her death. That he was partying with her in some bar one or two nights before and made a call to his brother to confirm this. That he had worked for some company in brentwood that caused him to paint her brentwood condo and that there were some pictures of them in the bar that furhman had for some reason. How much of this is true i have no idea but he is in jail on death row and it has been said that he has talked to some people about nicole.
i would like to see some proof of some of this if it is available. But if he was anyplace near Brentwood just before her murder, i think le should have been all over him.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Some times when people have no answer to valid questions,there can be efforts to derail the quesitons by making jokes.



How ridiculous. Have you noticed that the title of this thread is "Othellean Syndrome"??? It was "derailed" long ago & not by me :punch:

Have you also noticed that the balance of your post has nothing to do with the post that you are replying to? :rolleyes:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
If animal control couldn't be reached-- maybe due to the time lets say, then that could be important.

The questions are valid, and if you and Weezer don't know the answers so be it. Maybe somebody else will.


My experience with Animal Control in Los Angeles, is that even during the hours that they are open, if you call them about a stray dog, they will ask you to contain it on your property until they can get to it, as they are generally under staffed. The only time they come out right away is if the dog is dangerous.

[Beebee]

Beebee

Thanks for your post and your questions.

Some times when people have no answer to valid questions,there can be efforts to derail the quesitons by making jokes.

I am not sure le did any investigation of G Rogers. There were reports that he
had contact or was in nicole company just prior to her death. That he was partying with her in some bar one or two nights before and made a call to his brother to confirm this. That he had worked for some company in brentwood that caused him to paint her brentwood condo and that there were some pictures of them in the bar that furhman had for some reason. How much of this is true i have no idea but he is in jail on death row and it has been said that he has talked to some people about nicole.
i would like to see some proof of some of this if it is available. But if he was anyplace near Brentwood just before her murder, i think le should have been all over him.imo

martin II

Thanks... I totally agree with you about Rogers, supposidly he used a fake ID when he worked on Nicoles condo, since they didn't find that out, I guess they didn't interview too many people or investigate their claims :shrug:

[Beebee]

My experience with Animal Control in Los Angeles, is that even during the hours that they are open, if you call them about a stray dog, they will ask you to contain it on your property until they can get to it, as they are generally under staffed. The only time they come out right away is if the dog is dangerous.

That's not the point.

There should still be a record of the call and request. That record would reflect the times. Where is it? If not at animal control, then surely with the police, all their calls are logged.

[socaldiva]

That's not the point.

There should still be a record of the call and request. That record would reflect the times. Where is it? If not at animal control, then surely with the police, all their calls are logged.


Who's to say there isn't/wasn't a record?

I still don't know what you think this will or won't prove. Obviously the dog was found well after the murders occurred.

[Beebee]

Who's to say there isn't/wasn't a record?

I still don't know what you think this will or won't prove. Obviously the dog was found well after the murders occurred.

I agree with you, the dog was found after the murders occurred.

So if record shows the officers call to animal control at, let's say 10:45... then that is proof the murders occured before 10:45.

The prosecutions timeline had no proof as to what time the murders took place, so why not bring this in?

[socaldiva]

I agree with you, the dog was found after the murders occurred.

So if record shows the officers call to animal control at, let's say 10:45... then that is proof the murders occured before 10:45.

The prosecutions timeline had no proof as to what time the murders took place, so why not bring this in?


"No proof"? I guess this means that you discount the testimony given relative to times, including the people that found the dog :shrug:

[martin II]

I agree with you, the dog was found after the murders occurred.

So if record shows the officers call to animal control at, let's say 10:45... then that is proof the murders occured before 10:45.

The prosecutions timeline had no proof as to what time the murders took place, so why not bring this in?

Beebee

Thanks for your post.

I believe initially M Calke offered a murder time of about 10: 20 based on accounts of people like P F (ghost writer testimony) of hearing the dog bark.
But Heidstras testimony blew that time out of the water.
imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
But Heidstras testimony blew that time out of the water.
imo

martin II

Ah, so now you find Heidstras' testimony credible? You must have had waffles for breakfast. :D

[weezer]

Ah, so now you find Heidstras' testimony credible? You must have had waffles for breakfast. :D

I was wondering who "M Calke" is?

[socaldiva]

I was wondering who "M Calke" is?

Hmm....maybe it's Marcia Clark's cousin? :tongue:

[Big Ben]

oh -- well, when I read jayme's post, it made me wonder why you had never asked ben for a link to HIS post regarding Ron being protected as a 'snitch' -- I'd still like to know the answer to that.

What is this "link" business to which you keep referring? I want to be clear before I attempt to answer or provide you with what I consider to be such a link.

[Big Ben]

Who's to say there isn't/wasn't a record?

I still don't know what you think this will or won't prove. Obviously the dog was found well after the murders occurred.

""Obviously!""

It appears to many of us that all of the first statements were, more than likely, the correct statements. The initial statement of Steven Schwab, according to Marica Clark's verbal remark, is that he told police that he first spotted the dog at approximately 11:15 PM.

This particular time would have been at least 15 minutes after Simpson had left his Rockingham estate at approximately 11:00 PM. At that time Simpson was sitting in the backseat of a chauffeur driven limousine hurredly moving down the I-405 San Diego Freeway in an attempt to make an 11:45 PM flight to Chicago departing from LAX.

[weezer]

What is this "link" business to which you keep referring? I want to be clear before I attempt to answer or provide you with what I consider to be such a link.

let me make it clear for you: I did not ask you for a link.

[socaldiva]

""Obviously!""

It appears to many of us that all of the first statements were, more than likely, the correct statements. The initial statement of Steven Schwab, according to Marica Clark's verbal remark, is that he told police that he first spotted the dog at approximately 11:15 PM.

This particular time would have been at least 15 minutes after Simpson had left his Rockingham estate at approximately 11:00 PM. At that time Simpson was sitting in the backseat of a chauffeur driven limousine hurredly moving down the I-405 San Diego Freeway in an attempt to make an 11:45 PM flight to Chicago departing from LAX.

I suppose the "many" also think that the dog must have run into Schwab immediately following the murders. There is nothing to support that notion.

[bobaugust]

""Obviously!""

It appears to many of us that all of the first statements were, more than likely, the correct statements. The initial statement of Steven Schwab, according to Marica Clark's verbal remark, is that he told police that he first spotted the dog at approximately 11:15 PM.

This particular time would have been at least 15 minutes after Simpson had left his Rockingham estate at approximately 11:00 PM. At that time Simpson was sitting in the backseat of a chauffeur driven limousine hurredly moving down the I-405 San Diego Freeway in an attempt to make an 11:45 PM flight to Chicago departing from LAX.

Big Ben, why do you keep repeating this false information? Schwab never told the police he first spotted the dog at 11:15.

bobaugust

[Jayme K]

Jamie
you are the one that informed all here that there were different sub sections
under that CA code that Rons records courld be found in. It is my opinion
that if you haven this knowledge, it is your obligation to DO THE RESEARCH and present it to the thread NOT ME as i have made no CLAIM.
Imo
martin II

Then quit telling other people to do research when this post just shows that you're not willing to do your own!

It is NOT my obligation to do anything except tell you that there are other provisions to the code that Ben isn't telling you about and you can go to town. I noticed that you didn't ask Ben for any such thing, even after he admitted that there are other provisions.

So quit being a hypocrite.

[Big Ben]

Socaldiva,


Big Ben,

The problem I have with the Browns and the phone records is the Browns themselves have surely seen the records and could access them anytime, so THEY know the truth. If they had evidence that exonerated OJ in their daughters death, I'm hard pressed to believe they would cover that up, if for no other reason than to keep the investigation open as to who killed Nicole and Ron.

Was Glen Rogers ever ruled out as a suspect?



Lou Brown was traumatized when told that the records had been taken surrepticiously by DDA Wm Hodgman. He began to hysterically state that he and his wife needed to save their name. The Brown's interestingly enough asked us months later if we knew who killed there daughter after the media hype had died down from Simpson's suit against GTE. His remarks indicate that he knows more than he is willing to tell. The stakes may be too high for him to consider changing course at this date. Although he informed us that he had been "born again" and that he had now given himself to God.

Glen Rogers was a confidential informant, that is a part of his court transcripts in the Hillsboro County Murder trial for which he was a defendant in Tampa, Fla. A narcotic's officer from his Hamilton, Ohio hometown testified to that, stating that he was the best informant that they had, that he had made hundreds of cases and never blue his cover. He appeared to be moved across country to ply his under cover talent.

We communicated with Glen on death row in Fla. and told him that his CA. death row appeal file had been sealed by the same judge that gave Hodgman permission to remove the Simpson exhibits, and the same judge that sealed the civil service grievance proceedings of a female Deputy D.A. Lea D'Agostino for being removed as the prosecutor in his CA. murder trial, the same, Judge John Reid.

He acknowledged that he knew "those people" and that they knew him. He then sent his relatives to talk with us. The allegations are very strong from one of his family members that we interviewed that said that they saw check stubs for the work he did as a painter on Nicole's condo. They further alleged that Glen had been dating Nicole. Glen Roger's accessible criminal file in CA. indicates that he was a brutal domestic abuser, and did several dysfuntional things to avoid arrest. We found in his medical evaluation during pretrial in CA. that Glen is afflicted with the mentally debillitating blood disease called porphyria. This would undobtedly explain his Mr. Nice Guy charisma with the ladies and his subsequent transition into a beastly "Mr. Hyde-like" individual. I don't think he was ruled out, it seems that he was simply protected by law enforcement because of his undercover talent.

[Big Ben]

I suppose the "many" also think that the dog must have run into Schwab immediately following the murders. There is nothing to support that notion.

I don't comprehend the meaning nor the significance of your remark. I was simply addressing the multiple times that individuals had to revise their initial statements regarding the crucial time for which Mr. Simpson could have either committed the murders or he could not have committed them.

Mr. Schwab happened to be one of those individuals whose initial testimony regarding a crucial time recollection had to be revised. Invariably the time was always revised to the detriment of Mr. Simpson, guaranteeing him to be a prime suspect in the murders.

[Big Ben]

It is NOT my obligation to do anything except tell you that there are other provisions to the code that Ben isn't telling you about and you can go to town. I noticed that you didn't ask Ben for any such thing, even after he admitted that there are other provisions.

So quit being a hypocrite.

Maybe Martin didn't ask because he may have been satisfied with my analysis of Ron's criminal docket sheet that implies that he was more than likely receiving such judicial favoritism as confidential informants/snitches are known to receive for cooperating with law enforcement.

Interestingly, Ron's perceived judicial ambivalence, or arrogance, appears to mirror that of his stepmother, Patti Goldman's, former husband, Marvin Glass.

Glass received major favoritism in the early '80s by dodging a 210 year federal prison sentence for RICO charges connected with a conspiracy to traffick in over $100 Million Dollars in cocaine in the Chicago, Illinois area.

Instead he received 8 years in a federal prison medical center for continuing to wear a wire and bring to justice other narcotic traffickers and bribe taking judges of Cook County, Ill. This is the track that Ron seemed to be on when one examines his criminal docket sheet and raises questions about all of the thousands of dollars in arrest warrants and no time behind bars equivalent to his apparent disdain for law enforcement.

If Ron's conduct implied something consistent with other provisions of sec. 6254, I wouldn't have had any problem stating it, unfortunately it does not. Therefore it does not require me to give you a disclaimer about other unrelated provisions of that law. If you think that the judge's decisions are motivated by other provisions we've given you the opportunity to name what they are and why you feel that way. You appear to be weaseling out of addressing the counter proposition. I think that I know why. Don't be another Weezer!

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Mr. Schwab happened to be one of those individuals whose initial testimony regarding a crucial time recollection had to be revised.


Schwab claimed he had a consistent, ongoing schedule for walking his dog in the evening. On weekends he walked the dog from 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm. He said he encountered the Akita at 10:55 pm in the alley behind Nicole's condo & returned a few minutes after 11:00 pm. As for your claim to his having a different version of events, perhaps you can support this claim with a legitimate source, i.e. something you didn't produce yourself for profit?

[weezer]

Maybe Martin didn't ask because he may have been satisfied with my analysis of Ron's criminal docket sheet that implies that he was more than likely receiving such judicial favoritism as confidential informants/snitches are known to receive for cooperating with law enforcement.

Interestingly, Ron's perceived judicial ambivalence, or arrogance, appears to mirror that of his stepmother, Patti Goldman's, former husband, Marvin Glass.

Glass received major favoritism in the early '80s by dodging a 210 year federal prison sentence for RICO charges connected with a conspiracy to traffick in over $100 Million Dollars in cocaine in the Chicago, Illinois area.

Instead he received 8 years in a federal prison medical center for continuing to wear a wire and bring to justice other narcotic traffickers and bribe taking judges of Cook County, Ill. This is the track that Ron seemed to be on when one examines his criminal docket sheet and raises questions about all of the thousands of dollars in arrest warrants and no time behind bars equivalent to his apparent disdain for law enforcement.

If Ron's conduct implied something consistent with other provisions of sec. 6254, I wouldn't have had any problem stating it, unfortunately it does not. Therefore it does not require me to give you a disclaimer about other unrelated provisions of that law. If you think that the judge's decisions are motivated by other provisions we've given you the opportunity to name what they are and why you feel that way. You appear to be weaseling out of addressing the counter proposition. I think that I know why. Don't be another Weezer!

and what would 'another Weezer' be?

[Beebee]

He acknowledged that he knew "those people" and that they knew him. He then sent his relatives to talk with us. The allegations are very strong from one of his family members that we interviewed that said that they saw check stubs for the work he did as a painter on Nicole's condo. They further alleged that Glen had been dating Nicole. Glen Roger's accessible criminal file in CA. indicates that he was a brutal domestic abuser, and did several dysfuntional things to avoid arrest. We found in his medical evaluation during pretrial in CA. that Glen is afflicted with the mentally debillitating blood disease called porphyria. This would undobtedly explain his Mr. Nice Guy charisma with the ladies and his subsequent transition into a beastly "Mr. Hyde-like" individual. I don't think he was ruled out, it seems that he was simply protected by law enforcement because of his undercover talent.

Was it ever proven if he worked on her condo or not? Do you know if his family thinks he was involved? I tend to see him more as a snitch than a confidential informant. Like he wouldn't care who he was deceiving as long as it served his purpose, but I thought he was only doing that in Ohio, iirc from the Cross Country Killer book.

[Jayme K]

Maybe Martin didn't ask because he may have been satisfied with my analysis of Ron's criminal docket sheet that implies that he was more than likely receiving such judicial favoritism as confidential informants/snitches are known to receive for cooperating with law enforcement.

Interestingly, Ron's perceived judicial ambivalence, or arrogance, appears to mirror that of his stepmother, Patti Goldman's, former husband, Marvin Glass.

Glass received major favoritism in the early '80s by dodging a 210 year federal prison sentence for RICO charges connected with a conspiracy to traffick in over $100 Million Dollars in cocaine in the Chicago, Illinois area.

Instead he received 8 years in a federal prison medical center for continuing to wear a wire and bring to justice other narcotic traffickers and bribe taking judges of Cook County, Ill. This is the track that Ron seemed to be on when one examines his criminal docket sheet and raises questions about all of the thousands of dollars in arrest warrants and no time behind bars equivalent to his apparent disdain for law enforcement.

If Ron's conduct implied something consistent with other provisions of sec. 6254, I wouldn't have had any problem stating it, unfortunately it does not. Therefore it does not require me to give you a disclaimer about other unrelated provisions of that law. If you think that the judge's decisions are motivated by other provisions we've given you the opportunity to name what they are and why you feel that way. You appear to be weaseling out of addressing the counter proposition. I think that I know why. Don't be another Weezer!

Or maybe martin didn't ask because he loves to accept anything that paints a victim in a bad light.

You've already admitted that you don't know if the snitch provision is what protects Ron's file so stop trying to BS that you would have mentioned other provisions. You didn't mention them on purpose because you only want people to know a partial truth if it puts your theory in a better light.

I think you think you know alot of things, but the bottom line is that I already made the disclaimer that no one, including me, knows what provision protects the file and if saying "I don't know" is your definition of weaseling then you've got far bigger problems than I first thought.

[weezer]

Or maybe martin didn't ask because he loves to accept anything that paints a victim in a bad light.

You've already admitted that you don't know if the snitch provision is what protects Ron's file so stop trying to BS that you would have mentioned other provisions. You didn't mention them on purpose because you only want people to know a partial truth if it puts your theory in a better light.

I think you think you know alot of things, but the bottom line is that I already made the disclaimer that no one, including me, knows what provision protects the file and if saying "I don't know" is your definition of weaseling then you've got far bigger problems than I first thought.

Jayme, I've been reading the code ben keeps referring to but do not see anything about a record being protected because of a 'snitch provision' -- can you direct me to it?

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, why do you keep repeating this false information? Schwab never told the police he first spotted the dog at 11:15.

bobaugust

bob, although it's been awhile since listening to her audio book, I do however remember, Marcia Clark's verbal statement in her audio version of her first book on the Simpson trial, stating that Steven Schwab had initially told the police interviewers he saw (Nicole's) Akita at approximately 11:15 PM the night of June 12, 1994.

[Big Ben]

As for your claim to his having a different version of events, perhaps you can support this claim with a legitimate source, i.e. something you didn't produce yourself for profit?

I would recommend that you acquire Marcia Clark's 4 tape audio rendering of her book, "Without A Doubt". I believe that you will find her remark about Schwab's initial statement regarding the 11:15 PM sighting of the dog on tape two, though it's been several years since I last played them so don't hold me to which tape number it was, I do remember, however, her making that particular remark regarding Schwab's initial morning statement to the LAPD investigators.

However, Marcia subsequently went on to cite, what bobaugust loves to use as an excuse, that Schwab was awakened too early in the morning and he subsequently recontacted the police to revise his initial statement once he was in a sober frame of mind.

That makes about 5 or 6 that had to receive an epiphany that they had initially made a mistake regarding the crucial time that would have placed Simpson at the scene of the murders or not.

Lou Brown
Asked when his daughter was last known to be alive
Initially 11:00 PM then became between 9:30 -10:00 PM

Juditha Brown
when she last spoke to Nicole,
Initially 11:00 PM became 9:40 PM

Steven Schwab
when he saw the akita with bloody paws,
Initially 11:15 PM later became 10:45 PM

Faye Resnick
(last talked to Nicole)
Initially stated 10:45 PM after being reminded became 9:45 PM

Tia Gavin
(Time Ron departed work)
Initially said 10:33 PM PDTdue to no time
clock adjustment, it then became
9:33 PM punch out time.

Robert Shapiro
(initially offered to stipulate to the time of the Dana Point to Brentwood phone call by Juditha Brown back to the Mezzaluna Restaurant as
10:17 PM he later had an epiphany and stipulated to that crucial time being 9:37 PM.

[Big Ben]

Was it ever proven if he worked on her condo or not? Do you know if his family thinks he was involved? I tend to see him more as a snitch than a confidential informant. Like he wouldn't care who he was deceiving as long as it served his purpose, but I thought he was only doing that in Ohio, iirc from the Cross Country Killer book.

His family members are adament about his intimate involvement with Nicole and a photo that they claim to have given to the Simpson civil attorneys, and later alleged to be reluctantly acknowledged but never returned upon repeated requests, showing Glen and Nicole out at the House of Blues in L.A.

Whether they think he was involved???? They appeared to be 50/50, knowing full well his uncontrollable violent capabilities when the disease, porphyria, is emotionally triggered and takes over.

Glen was a shrewd operator apparently about his murders. When confronted by a newsman after his arrest, which is in the documentary "Serpents Rising", the news journalist in one news report badgered him again at the jail entrance about being arrested for killing 4 women in about a month's period of time, including the Vanuys, CA. murder. Glen allegedly stated "Four!!! More like 74!!!"

Certain police statements note him to be a valuable and talented under cover operative, working intentionally with the police on hundreds of dangerous assignments. The officer that made these remarks was the only one to seem interested in saving him from the death penalty in FLA. He stated that he was one of the most valuable CI that they had having made hundreds of cases without ever blowing his cover.

I don't know the difference in the disticntion you want to make between a snitch and a CI. I do know this, it is a very hazardous line of business to be in when the persons you are informing on are facing the possibility of life in a level 4, or 5 Federal Penitentiary, i.e Terre Haute, Leavonworth, Marion, Atlanta, Lewisburg, or the Federal Supermax Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.

Rogers paid for his boldness in his medical reports. He had multiple head traumas caused by tire irons, baseball bats, pipes, car crashes, etc.
They speculate that this may have further traumitized his brain and accasserbated his psychosis attributed to his bouts with porphyria. The medical reports and the book highlight the key indicator of porphyria found with the murdered victims, the reddish-purple irridescent enzyme released in the toilet during defecation.

The police knew about him very well, but a good snitch is invaluable, and are often relocated for security purposes and worked across the country.

[Big Ben]

Jayme, I've been reading the code ben keeps referring to but do not see anything about a record being protected because of a 'snitch provision' -- can you direct me to it?

Please accept my assistance, Weezer! California Government Code, Section 6254. It comes under the greater California Public Records or Public Documents Act.

[weezer]

Please accept my assistance, Weezer! California Government Code, Section 6254. It comes under the greater California Public Records or Public Documents Act.

yep -- that's the one I was reading. My statement is that I don't see where in that code it refers to a 'snitch'.

[Big Ben]

yep -- that's the one I was reading. My statement is that I don't see where in that code it refers to a 'snitch'.

If it's true, that's interesting. Why don't you post the wording that you have discovered and let's see what we can resolve.

[Big Ben]

yep -- that's the one I was reading. My statement is that I don't see where in that code it refers to a 'snitch'.

Weezer, I went back and read the statutory language under sec. 6254 as it pertains to the examination of criminal records. I see now why it is so frustrating to find the reference to confidential informants.

Although the word confidential informant is cited in a watered down context at now what appears to be sec. 6254 (4) (f), the statutory wording appears to have been significantly amended. In the year 2000 the words that were distinctively in a much shorter version, of this now apparent omnibus statute, stated that the criminal records of those cooperating with law enforcement as confidential informants were exempt from public disclosure. This law has seemed to become more occluded with time. The statutory language as I remember then was short and concise, not like this humble-jumble, however, I now believe that you have turned up the heat for me to go through our files and locate the original unamended version of the statute as we found it in 2000.

If I don't find the prior statutory text I guess it will give you the upper hand in ridicule, however, if I do find it and find that it was as clear as I heretofore alleged it to be, what prospective impact do you think that such will have on you.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
if I do find it and find that it was as clear as I heretofore alleged it to be, what prospective impact do you think that such will have on you.

Why are you asking her to speculate as to her reaction to something you might not find? :confused: :shrug:

[weezer]

Weezer, I went back and read the statutory language under sec. 6254 as it pertains to the examination of criminal records. I see now why it is so frustrating to find the reference to confidential informants.

Although the word confidential informant is cited in a watered down context at now what appears to be sec. 6254 (4) (f), the statutory wording appears to have been significantly amended. In the year 2000 the words that were distinctively in a much shorter version, of this now apparent omnibus statute, stated that the criminal records of those cooperating with law enforcement as confidential informants were exempt from public disclosure. This law has seemed to become more occluded with time. The statutory language as I remember then was short and concise, not like this humble-jumble, however, I now believe that you have turned up the heat for me to go through our files and locate the original unamended version of the statute as we found it in 2000.

If I don't find the prior statutory text I guess it will give you the upper hand in ridicule, however, if I do find it and find that it was as clear as I heretofore alleged it to be, what prospective impact do you think that such will have on you.

alrighty then -- :rolleyes:

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .They speculate that this may have further traumitized his brain and accasserbated his psychosis attributed to his bouts with porphyria. The medical reports and the book highlight the key indicator of porphyria found with the murdered victims, the reddish-purple irridescent enzyme released in the toilet during defecation.

Not real sure how bad skin or constipation could "accasserbated" his psychosis!

"Porphyria
Porphyrias are a group of genetic disorders caused by problems with how your body makes a substance called heme. Heme is found throughout the body, especially in your blood and bone marrow, where it carries oxygen.
Porphyrias affect the skin or the nervous system. People with the skin type develop blisters, itching, and swelling of their skin when it is exposed to sunlight. The nervous system type is called acute porphyria. Symptoms include pain in the chest or abdomen, vomiting, and diarrhea or constipation. During an attack, symptoms can include muscle numbness, tingling, paralysis, cramping, and personality or mental changes. Certain triggers can cause an attack, including some medicines, smoking, drinking alcohol, infections, stress and sun exposure. Attacks develop over hours or days. They can last for days or weeks.
Porphyria can be hard to diagnose. It requires blood, urine and stool tests. Each type has a different treatment. It usually involves medicine, treatment with heme or drawing blood.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases"

imo

[jotun]

Answer to Q1: Still within the GTE/Verizon Archives in San Angelo, TX.

Answer to Q2: As far as we are concerned they have not put this question to rest. Based upon my knowledge I would say that they are quite concerned that the issue may arrise in the news media once again. We certainly intend to continue to press the issue at the appropriate chosen time.

Big Ben,
You need a HACKER.
Or get William Dear to help. He wanted Jason's medical file.Somehow charmed someone.Later was slipped under his door.

Hope the telephone records do rise again.I believe the answer is in them. Have always felt the Browns are hiding something,especially since A.C.'s depo.

Think I have expressed this before:
Think Judy orginally said the phone was ringing as they came in the door that night and it was Nicole.
Sidney & Justin can sign your paper for access to NICOLE'S records.
ASK THEM!!!

Press On.

IMO

jotun

[Big Ben]

Why are you asking her to speculate as to her reaction to something you might not find? :confused: :shrug:

Oh, I'm going to find it! Not so much to appease you, but because it has now become a curiosity challenge for me. If I had ever ran into the wording that I'm presently looking at in this statute, I never would have concluded from these words anything. I would still be attempting to decipher the mumbo-jumbo implication of this meaningless statute. The present wording virtually says nothing about anything and I want to prove that they at least changed the more precise wording of this statute and, quite possibly, any intent to draw conclusions from its statutory language.

I will be back!

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=jotun;9017087]Big Ben,
Statement: You need a HACKER.

Answer: So far those who proclaim to have that type of expertise have all gone down in flames. Each one that has introduced themselves in different states of the United States have all stated the same thing. They claim to run into a serious security alert system that, if they stay more than 3 seconds, they will be identified.

Statement: "Hope the telephone records do rise again".

A: Me too!


Statement: Think I have expressed this before:
Think Judy orginally said the phone was ringing as they came in the door that night and it was Nicole.

A: I was unaware of that one.

Statement:"Sidney & Justin can sign your paper for access to NICOLE'S records. ASK THEM!!!"

A: They must reach out first to ask us for assistance . They know who we are. The opposite method, in my opinion, would create continued unnecessary animosity between father and daughter.


Q: "Sidney & Justin can sign your paper for access to NICOLE'S records.
ASK THEM!!!"

A: O.J. is a very serious protector of those kids. Sydney is aware of us, she'll have to reach out. We will not violate whatever relationship that exists between father and daughter. She is a very sensitive and intelligent girl, when we first met her at age 11 or 12. Her dad wouldn't allow her to listen to any updates, but she wouldn't go all the way to her room either. The expression in her young eyes, as I remember, tells me that one day she will reach out, and ask for help. When and if she does we will respond, God willing.

However, you should demand them, since those records were already entered into the public domain by virtue of the subpoena in the People of the state of CA. vs. Orenthal James Simpson. Bill Hodgman removed all of the Simpson exhibits from the courthouse. The prosecution entered over one thousand exhibits, I can't even imagine where he would put all of that stuff
IMO

[Big Ben]

Not real sure how bad skin or constipation could "accasserbated" his psychosis! "Porphyria"


imo

could trigger ......."personality and mental changes"

[Big Ben]

alrighty then -- :rolleyes:

Weezer, I can't find the language that I set off to find, the statute has remained the same since 1994 as I review it. The language that I allege, of protecting information from review from individuals cooperating with law enforcement as a confidential informant, came from somewhere, other than my own mind, I feel certain of that in spite of my inability to locate it.

However, I have read other annotations of the statute (California First Amendment Coalition) and they appear to agree with my conclusions that the reason for prohibiting access to criminal records, like Goldman's, is associated with a clause in the "law enforcement exemption" of 6254(f) which pertains to intelligence information. The exemption appears to relate to prohibiting access to information that might identify confidential sources, or targets of an intelligence inquiry, or confidential information that was supplied by its original source.

Given Mr. Goldman's proclivity to ignore the Court's orders, his several rearrests, and the Court's leniency subsequent to the issuing of thousands of dollars in arrest warrants over 3 years implies protection falls under the witholding of intelligence information pursuant to the "law enforcement exemption" of 6254, and nothing else.

As I previously pointed out, when everything is stripped down, sec. 6254, particularly sec. 6254 (f) is intended to protect confidential informants or "snitches".

[weezer]

Weezer, I can't find the language that I set off to find, the statute has remained the same since 1994 as I review it. The language that I allege, of protecting information from review from individuals cooperating with law enforcement as a confidential informant, came from somewhere, other than my own mind, I feel certain of that in spite of my inability to locate it.

However, I have read other annotations of the statute (California First Amendment Coalition) and they appear to agree with my conclusions that the reason for prohibiting access to criminal records, like Goldman's, is associated with a clause in the "law enforcement exemption" of 6254(f) which pertains to intelligence information. The exemption appears to relate to prohibiting access to information that might identify confidential sources, or targets of an intelligence inquiry, or confidential information that was supplied by its original source.

Given Mr. Goldman's proclivity to ignore the Court's orders, his several rearrests, and the Court's leniency subsequent to the issuing of thousands of dollars in arrest warrants over 3 years implies protection falls under the witholding of intelligence information pursuant to the "law enforcement exemption" of 6254, and nothing else.

As I previously pointed out, when everything is stripped down, sec. 6254, particularly sec. 6254 (f) is intended to protect confidential informants or "snitches".

Didn't you have to quote the Statute when you 'filed' your paperwork to access his record? I can only assume that your reading and 'interpretation' of the Statue is yours alone. There is no proof that Ron Goldman did or was any of the things that you have alledged. imo

[Big Ben]

Didn't you have to quote the Statute when you 'filed' your paperwork to access his record? I can only assume that your reading and 'interpretation' of the Statue is yours alone. There is no proof that Ron Goldman did or was any of the things that you have alledged. imo

Weezer, where there's smoke there's usually fire!

We initially asked to review his file based upon a case file number 91c00362 received from our own source within the Superior Court. We didn't presume or know any more than that case file number. When we asked one of the court clerks to retireve the file, he punched in the case number, and paper continued to emerge from a computer sitting on a four foot desk until paper fell onto the floor. It was only then that we suspected that there might be more to Mr. Goldman's background. Then that clerk lied and said that the file no longer existed.

We knew better because it was another clerk who had initially flagged the file, and fortunately for us, she was out to lunch. Because of her innocently being outside the loop, we actually did see the file and it's 6 inch width. However, the contents were apparently marked confidential and subsequently would prevent us access to reviewing the record.

We never knew about 6254 until we had asked why one of our investigators was denied access to the file. The inquiry regarding the denial of access was directed to the four judges in the criminal docket sheet, in the form of certified letters in 2000, that issued several thousand dollars in bench and arrest warrants over the 3 year period for case 91C00362, the People vs. Ronald Lyle Goldman. The docket sheet apparently is not considered to be confidential, yet it raised a number of unanswered questions about Mr. Goldman.

Those certified letters never received a direct reply from any of the judges, they were turned over to Municipal Court Mngr. Ann Madden, in Malibu. She pleaded with the investigator to please not make her the "bad guy" in this matter, that the file was protected by Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 6254. That's when we first heard about this unusual statute.

I have naiively believed "In God We Trust" whereas I should have seen the future importance of those prior words concerning the protection of CIs, in conjunction with the heretofore discovered malfeasance, and pinned it to my office wall.

I awarded you partial victory on this issue, what else do you want? I can't give you total victory because the dysfunctional conduct in the criminal docket sheet of 91c00362 must be addressed. Again, I believe that concealing the records under any justification, simply castes further suspicion on this whole sordid affair. No one that I know of intentionally runs up thousands of dollars in arrest warrants, and the unusual leniency of the judges, their avoidance of a written response, has the mark of "SNITCH" written all over it.

[weezer]

*Snipped* I awarded you partial victory on this issue, what else do you want? I can't give you total victory because the dysfunctional conduct in the criminal docket sheet of 91c00362 must be addressed. Again, I believe that concealing the records under any justification, simply castes further suspicion on this whole sordid affair. No one that I know of intentionally runs up thousands of dollars in arrest warrants, and the unusual leniency of the judges, their avoidance of a written response, has the mark of "SNITCH" written all over it.

It is the rules of this Board that if you make a statement as fact, and if you are asked to provide a link to verify your statement, and if you cannot do so, you must stop making the post. I am requesting that you provide that link now. If you cannot or do not, you have nothing to prove your allegations about Ron Goldman and I request that you stop posting your slanderous allegations.

[martin II]

It is the rules of this Board that if you make a statement as fact, and if you are asked to provide a link to verify your statement, and if you cannot do so, you must stop making the post. I am requesting that you provide that link now. If you cannot or do not, you have nothing to prove your allegations about Ron Goldman and I request that you stop posting your slanderous allegations.

weezer

Some poster here do ask, me included, for links when they seek to verify claims or do more research on a subject. But it seems sometimes you take this to the extreme when you dissagree with a poster. We are all adults here and can determine the validity of a post for ourselves.
I believe that the moderator has said that posters can decide if a claim is true or not although there is a rule you speak about.
I know the moderator does read these post and makes comments when she/he feels it is necessary.
why not leave reading the rules to posters to the moderator.I don't believe it is necessary to assume that role with posters.
all my opinion
martin II

[martin II]

It is the rules of this Board that if you make a statement as fact, and if you are asked to provide a link to verify your statement, and if you cannot do so, you must stop making the post. I am requesting that you provide that link now. If you cannot or do not, you have nothing to prove your allegations about Ron Goldman and I request that you stop posting your slanderous allegations.

weezer

Some poster here do ask, me included, for links when they seek to verify claims or do more research on a subject. But it seems sometimes you take this to the extreme when you dissagree with a poster. We are all adults here and can determine the validity of a post for ourselves.
I believe that the moderator has said that posters can decide if a claim is true or not although there is a rule you speak about.
I know the moderator does read these post and makes comments when she/he feels it is necessary.
why not leave reading the rules to posters to the moderator.I don't believe it is necessary to assume that role with posters.
all my opinion
martin II

[Big Ben]

It is the rules of this Board that if you make a statement as fact, and if you are asked to provide a link to verify your statement, and if you cannot do so, you must stop making the post. I am requesting that you provide that link now. If you cannot or do not, you have nothing to prove your allegations about Ron Goldman and I request that you stop posting your slanderous allegations.

I previously requested a response from you or somebody as to what you meant by link? Are you using the word link in exchange for evidence, if so maybe I can accomodate you?:shrug:

[Big Ben]

It is the rules of this Board that if you make a statement as fact, and if you are asked to provide a link to verify your statement, and if you cannot do so, you must stop making the post. I am requesting that you provide that link now. If you cannot or do not, you have nothing to prove your allegations about Ron Goldman and I request that you stop posting your slanderous allegations.

Here, Weezer, lets try this. Here are a couple of links that will allow you to view Goldman's criminal docket sheet.

C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman criminal records


C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman criminal records-2


C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman crimnal record-3

maybe these will help to satisfy your doubting mind.

[bobaugust]

Here, Weezer, lets try this. Here are a couple of links that will allow you to view Goldman's criminal docket sheet.

C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman criminal records


C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman criminal records-2


C:\Documents and Settings\Troylee\My Documents\goldman crimnal record-3

maybe these will help to satisfy your doubting mind.

Big Ben, those are links to your hard drive. No one can access them unless they use your computer.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, those are links to your hard drive. No one can access them unless they use your computer.

bobaugust

We'll try again.

[Big Ben]

We'll try again.

Try this one bob, they are posted here in the photo documents near the right hand side of this msn page.

www.msnusers.com/goldmancriminaldocketsheet

[weezer]

Try this one bob, they are posted here in the photo documents near the right hand side of this msn page.

www.msnusers.com/goldmancriminaldocketsheet

thanks for the link. Here's what Ron's 'criminal history' records tell me:

April 91 - Ron is issued tickets for speeding, driving with a suspended license, and driving as an unlicensed driver

May 10, '91 - Ron does not show up for court. $1,000 bench warrant issued.

May 15, '91 - Ron goes to court and enters a plea deal.
It looks like he's to pay the $$ part of the fine by Aug 26, 1991 and show proof that he had completed his plea deal (community service?) by Nov 25, 1991. $1000 bench warrant recalled.

Nov 25, 1991 - Ron does not show up for court.

Feb 19, 1992 - $2500 Bench warrant issued.

June 1, 1992 - Ron goes to court. $2500 bench warrant recalled.

July 31, 1992 - Ron does not show up for court. $10,000 Bench warrant issued.

Sounds to me like the judge was tired of giving him chances and with the third 'no-show', decided to get tough.

Now, how you came up with $16,000 in money he owed and how you got from Ron not paying his outstanding driving tickets to being let off because he was a 'snitch', I still can't figure out.

BTW -- this shows the jurisdiction as Malibu. Didn't you say that he was driving down Rockingham when he got the tickets?

imo

[Big Ben]

thanks for the link. Here's what Ron's 'criminal history' records tell me:

Sounds to me like the judge was tired of giving him chances and with the third 'no-show', decided to get tough.

Now, how you came up with $16,000 in money he owed and how you got from Ron not paying his outstanding driving tickets to being let off because he was a 'snitch', I still can't figure out.

BTW -- this shows the jurisdiction as Malibu. Didn't you say that he was driving down Rockingham when he got the tickets?

imo
Sorry Weezer, we posted page one of the criminal docket sheet twice. Go back to the link and we posted page 4 of the criminal docket sheet. It indicates that he didn't show up again a year later in November 1992. In Jan. 1993 the same judge strangely issued a $2,500 bench warrant (There's your $16, 000) after previously issuing a $10,000 bench warrant. The last remains outstanding for 18 months until 7 days after his death when it is recalled.
www.msnusers.com/goldmancriminaldocketsheet

Q: Didn't you say that he was driving down Rockingham when he got the tickets?

A: No, I did not.

Q: "...and how you got from Ron not paying his outstanding driving tickets to being let off because he was a 'snitch', I still can't figure out."

A: My focus is not on Ron Goldman, it's on the extraordinary conduct of the judges. The average person doesn't get to thumb his nose at the court and make the judges look like monkeys multiple times. We'd like to know what was the quid pro quo involved here.

The only way that we felt that we could get a better understanding is by examining the total record pursuant to the Cal. Public Records Act. Unfortunately we were restricted from doing so pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 6254 (f) in accordance with its' law enforcement exemption. Again, under 6254 (f) is specific language that is stated to protect the records of confidential informants/snitches from public review.

My original premise was that his file is protected under a law that protects the records of CIs/snitches, because that's what that particular section of that law does. His conduct, and moreso that of the 4 judges, is consistent with the actions of court officers obligated to afford special consideration to those working under cover on their behalf as CIs and/or snitches.

[weezer]

Sorry Weezer, we posted page one of the criminal docket sheet twice. Go back to the link and we posted page 4 of the criminal docket sheet. It indicates that he didn't show up again a year later in November 1992. In Jan. 1993 the same judge strangely issued a $2,500 bench warrant (There's your $16, 000) after previously issuing a $10,000 bench warrant. The last remains outstanding for 18 months until 7 days after his death when it is recalled.
www.msnusers.com/goldmancriminaldocketsheet

Q: Didn't you say that he was driving down Rockingham when he got the tickets?

A: No, I did not.

Q: "...and how you got from Ron not paying his outstanding driving tickets to being let off because he was a 'snitch', I still can't figure out."

A: My focus is not on Ron Goldman, it's on the extraordinary conduct of the judges. The average person doesn't get to thumb his nose at the court and make the judges look like monkeys multiple times. We'd like to know what was the quid pro quo involved here.

The only way that we felt that we could get a better understanding is by examining the total record pursuant to the Cal. Public Records Act. Unfortunately we were restricted from doing so pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 6254 (f) in accordance with its' law enforcement exemption. Again, under 6254 (f) is specific language that is stated to protect the records of confidential informants/snitches from public review.
My original premise was that his file is protected under a law that protects the records of CIs/snitches, because that's what that particular section of that law does. His conduct, and moreso that of the 4 judges, is consistent with the actions of court officers obligated to afford special consideration to those working under cover on their behalf as CIs and/or snitches.

specific languange protecting the records of confidential informants/snitches? As we discussed earlier, I've looked and read the Statue and I don't see what you're saying.

what four judges? It looks like he was in front of the same court. What makes you think there were four different judges? Ron didn't tend to his traffic tickets and with each non-appearance, the penalty got higher. I don't find that odd or sinister or clandestine.

The only monies I could see that had not been recalled is the $10,000 final warrant. Are you adding everything from the time the tickets were issued?

On the paperwork you posted, someone wrote in "Driving down Rockingham" -- was that you or someone else?

[Big Ben]

specific languange protecting the records of confidential informants/snitches? As we discussed earlier, I've looked and read the Statue and I don't see what you're saying.

what four judges? It looks like he was in front of the same court. What makes you think there were four different judges? Ron didn't tend to his traffic tickets and with each non-appearance, the penalty got higher. I don't find that odd or sinister or clandestine.

The only monies I could see that had not been recalled is the $10,000 final warrant. Are you adding everything from the time the tickets were issued?

On the paperwork you posted, someone wrote in "Driving down Rockingham" -- was that you or someone else?

"...nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following; (f) Records of complaints....or investigations conducted by......any state or local police agency, .....except that state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses, diagrams and statements of the parties involved in or witnesses ....to, the incident,....other than confidential informants.

Weezer, this is the problem with omnibus laws they are written in a manner to hide important information. It is usually in the overlooked details that you find the millions of dollars spent for bridges to nowhere. California, imo, has simply used this one for other sinister purposes.

Q: "what four judges?"

A:
Judge (Commissioner) Terry Admamson issued the 1st $1,000 arrest warrant in May 1991. When he finally was apprehended the Judge (Commissioner ) Susan Karl recalled it.

Judge (Commissioner) Reva Goetz issued the 2nd, a bench warrant, for $2,500 for failing to return to court in Nov. 1991, now as a probation violation hearing.

It issued on 02/19/92. When he was apprehended in June of 1992 Judge Goetz recalled the bench warrant and continued the case to July 31, 1992.

Judge (Commisioner) Robert McIntosh issued a $10,000 bench warrant for Goldman's arrest due to his continued failure to appear in court.

Goldman is apprehended and appears in court on August 7, 1992, Judge McIntosh recalls the $10,000 bench warrant. The case is continued for Nov. 1992, but Goldman does not show up again.

Judge (Commissioner) Robert McIntosh issues a bench warrant for $2,500 in January 1993. The warrant remains outstanding until June 20, 1994 when Judge (Commissioner) Robert McIntosh recalls the $2,500 bench warrant. Ron does not show up in court, he has been deceased for 7 days.

Q:"On the paperwork you posted, someone wrote in "Driving down Rockingham" -- was that you or someone else?"

A: I don't see this on any of the documents faxed to me, point out what page that you are referring to, if you can. No one that is a member of the OMIG organization has stated anything to that effect, to my knowledge.

[Kate Sachel]

The only way that we felt that we could get a better understanding is by examining the total record pursuant to the Cal. Public Records Act. Unfortunately we were restricted from doing so pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 6254 (f) in accordance with its' law enforcement exemption. Again, under 6254 (f) is specific language that is stated to protect the records of confidential informants/snitches from public review.

My original premise was that his file is protected under a law that protects the records of CIs/snitches, because that's what that particular section of that law does. His conduct, and moreso that of the 4 judges, is consistent with the actions of court officers obligated to afford special consideration to those working under cover on their behalf as CIs and/or snitches.

Morning Ben,

Just so I can clarify prior to beginning some research on this, were advised that you were restricted from examining his record pursuant specifically to California Government Code 6254 (f) or were you advised that you were restricted from doing so pursuant to California Government Code 6254?

Kindly,

Kate