Issues In The Criminal Trial

[martin II]

the jury had been instructed for months NOT to form an opinion. are you saying that the jury -- after 9 months of testimony -- formed an opinion in less than 4 hours?

I am saying the jury heard testimony for 9 months and they were able to decide who they believed when testimony was given.When deliberations started They took a vote and it was 9 to 3. Obviously they asked for questions and these questions were discussed.They asked for Parks readback and continued to discuss and answer questions of those that had quesitons.
The jury decided then to that they wanted to take another vote.No one knew what the vote would be. This was decision time and this is when each had to take under consideraiton all of the testimony they had heard and make a individual choice of verdict.This is what is required by law and that is what they did.There is no requirement that the jury deliberate a certain length of time and i find no reason why some seem to believe that they be the judge of how long the jury should have deliberated.imo

[William Anthony]

I'm still amazed it was only 4 hours after the length of the trial.

I would bet that had it been returned "guilty" the NGs would have complained that they didn't deliberate long enough to really come to that conclusion.

We will never know.

[William Anthony]

The blood was seen on the gate on the June 13, 1994 during the initial investigation by Riske, Rossi, Fuhrman, Phillips, Lange and others. Riske is the officer that showed the blood to Fuhrman.

The blood on the socks was not seen because of the dark color of the socks but was seen in the lab. A defense expert, Herbert MacDonell, testifed that the blood would be difficult to see under normal lighting. Dr. Lee, also for the defense, testified that he couldn't tell if there was any blood on the socks in the photograph shown to him.

The blood in the Bronco was hard to see. No mystery there.

That is what the officers testified to but the evidence is that a blood spot on the gate contained enough EDTA to kill a person and so did the blood on the sock. Although it may have been hard to see, when one is looking specifically for blood and is inside the Bronco, it should have been seen.

[William Anthony]

You better believe they would. IMO, four hours to deliberate a nine-month case is an insult.

The families should have felt insulted by the weak case the prosecution presented and the evidence of their unprofessional conduct and relationship during the trial.

[tv]

The families should have felt insulted by the weak case the prosecution presented and the evidence of their unprofessional conduct and relationship during the trial.William Anthony, I hope you're not considering revisiting the underwear discussion or the Darden/Clarke connection. What does that have to do with whether or not OJ Simpson killed two people?

[William Anthony]

You probably didn't hear any one on this board speak out against the King verdict since we weren't here then. If you're going to invoke the King verdict and aftermath into this discussion, I don't remember hearing any poster disavow the pack of animals that attacked Reginald Denny either.

There has been no proof/evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in the simpson or any other case. There is proof/evidence that he recorded tapes as part of a screenplay. A screenplay is make believe -- kinda like Disneyland.

So, you want to talk Disneyland. Let's talk. I sometimes watch the tv shows that were put on during the time Walt Disney had the mouseketeers on. There was Father Knows Best, Maybeery RFD, Leave it to Beaver, Lassie and the likes. Get the picture on those black and white tv sets? Those shows showed a reality that did not exist in some neighborhoods, just as MF's words in the screenplay portrayed a reality that did exist in other neighborhoods.

So, you want to talk packs of animals. Let's talk. While I think it is horrific to act in the way those people acted when Reginald Denny was attacked, it is understandable when you consider the reality of conditions that they were forced to live with in those neighborhoods, as MF described on those tapes. When people are systematically abused, murdered, falsely imprisoned, and find no recourse it is understandable that they out of a sense of frustration and anger resort to violence. What is not understandable that those who are in power abuse, murder and falsely imprison the disenfranchised and powerless and the system systematically protects those savage animal packs. I think MR. DENNY AND MR. KING UNDERSTOOD THOSE REALITIES.

Although we may not have been here then, Rodney King is relevant to an issue in this case. I have previously expressed similar sentiments about the aftermath and the case. What I have not heard is anyone say that LE acted like a pack of savage animals for no apparent reason and got away because the system was slanted to favor the savage like animal conduct of some.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, I hope you're not considering revisiting the underwear discussion or the Darden/Clarke connection. What does that have to do with whether or not OJ Simpson killed two people?

Just talking about feeling insulted. If it had nothing to do with the case, why was she mentioning it? That's why the families should have felt insulted.

[William Anthony]

the jury had been instructed for months NOT to form an opinion. are you saying that the jury -- after 9 months of testimony -- formed an opinion in less than 4 hours?

Formed a unanimous opinion.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, I hope you're not considering revisiting the underwear discussion or the Darden/Clarke connection. What does that have to do with whether or not OJ Simpson killed two people?

If I were a family member, I would have been insulted listening to Clark ask whether or not Ms. Moore knew if Arnelle of the first Ms. Simpson dyed their hair. I would have been insulted when Darden tried the glove demonstration and I would have felt insulted when I heard those infamous tapes after MF lied under oath. What about you?

[martin II]

The families should have felt insulted by the weak case the prosecution presented and the evidence of their unprofessional conduct and relationship during the trial.

The larger offense commited by Clarke and Darden was how they seemed to think they had time for personal involvement when they should have been trying to improve on all the mistakes they had commited in presenting that very weak case.imo

[bobaugust]

I thought you had changed your tactics. However, I was wrong. This from the link I supplied.

"Mr. Deedrick also conceded that while dandruff was found in hairs taken from Mr. Simpson while in prison, there was no dandruff in those hairs resembling Mr. Simpson's found in the blue knit cap retrieved from the crime scene."

No my tactics have not changed since they are based on the evidence in this case. Do I occasionally make mistakes? Yes and I admit when I'm wrong. When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. When I said there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, I was correct. But when I said when samples of Simpson's hair were later taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff, I was mistaken. My mistake in no way changes the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have.
MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.
MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.
MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.
MS. CLARK: And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The larger offense commited by Clarke and Darden was how they seemed to think they had time for personal involvement when they should have been trying to improve on all the mistakes they had commited in presenting that very weak case.imo

Agreed, that is what I meant by their unprofessional conduct. It took six months for them to present a weak case that could have been presented in a week. :), imho.

[weezer]

*Snipped*So, you want to talk Disneyland. Let's talk. I sometimes watch the tv shows that were put on during the time Walt Disney had the mouseketeers on. There was Father Knows Best, Maybeery RFD, Leave it to Beaver, Lassie and the likes. Get the picture on those black and white tv sets? Those shows showed a reality that did not exist in some neighborhoods, just as MF's words in the screenplay portrayed a reality that did exist in other neighborhoods. . ."

psst -- those shows were not reality. . .DUH

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .So, you want to talk packs of animals. Let's talk. While I think it is horrific to act in the way those people acted when Reginald Denny was attacked, it is understandable when you consider the reality of conditions that they were forced to live with in those neighborhoods. . ."

this is a stupid, insensitive, assinine post.

[weezer]

Formed a unanimous opinion.

jury nullification

[martin II]

No my tactics have not changed since they are based on the evidence in this case. Do I occasionally make mistakes? Yes and I admit when I'm wrong. When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. When I said there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, I was correct. But when I said when samples of Simpson's hair were later taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff, I was mistaken. My mistake in no way changes the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have.
MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.
MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.
MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.
MS. CLARK: And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

bobaugust


BOB
Dandruff is a individual issue due to the skin on the persons head and the care a indivdial takes with his scalp.
This testimony has nothing to do with Simpsons scalp.
imo

[weezer]

If I were a family member, I would have been insulted listening to Clark ask whether or not Ms. Moore knew if Arnelle of the first Ms. Simpson dyed their hair. I would have been insulted when Darden tried the glove demonstration and I would have felt insulted when I heard those infamous tapes after MF lied under oath. What about you?

hmmm -- I don't think you have a clue as to what the families felt:

"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- During a break in the O.J. Simpson murder trial Thursday, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman blasted lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran for invoking racism in his closing argument.

In a highly emotional statement to the press, Fred Goldman repeatedly called Cochran a racist and "disgusting." Goldman appeared to be most upset by Cochran's portrayal of former Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman as the mastermind behind an alleged scheme to frame Simpson. (113K AIFF sound or 113K WAV sound)

Goldman said Cochran would have the jury believe "because of racism" they should "put aside all other thought, all other reason and set his murdering client free."

His voice rising to a scream, Goldman said Cochran is "the worst kind of racist himself, someone who shoves racism in front of everything, someone who compares a person who speaks racist comments to Hitler, a person who murdered millions of people." (275K AIFF sound or 275K WAV sound)

As Goldman continued, his wife, Patti, stood behind him holding back tears. As he grew more emotional, Patti Goldman urged him to close his statement. At one point she pressed Goldman on the arm. He waved her away, telling her, "No." (1,598K QuickTime movie)

Goldman, whose emotional press conferences have become a fixture in the case, also attacked Cochran's use of bodyguards from the Nation of Islam.

"This man is sick," Goldman shouted. "He is absolutely sick. He walks about for the past days screaming, if you would, in a silent way, that his life has been threatened, and who does he chose to walk with -- guards from the Nation of Islam? Who does he connect himself with? This man is a horror walking around amongst us."

[weezer]

The larger offense commited by Clarke and Darden was how they seemed to think they had time for personal involvement when they should have been trying to improve on all the mistakes they had commited in presenting that very weak case.imo

only the very weak minded bought the scheme team defense. imo

[martin II]

hmmm -- I don't think you have a clue as to what the families felt:

"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- During a break in the O.J. Simpson murder trial Thursday, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman blasted lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran for invoking racism in his closing argument.

In a highly emotional statement to the press, Fred Goldman repeatedly called Cochran a racist and "disgusting." Goldman appeared to be most upset by Cochran's portrayal of former Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman as the mastermind behind an alleged scheme to frame Simpson. (113K AIFF sound or 113K WAV sound)

Goldman said Cochran would have the jury believe "because of racism" they should "put aside all other thought, all other reason and set his murdering client free."

His voice rising to a scream, Goldman said Cochran is "the worst kind of racist himself, someone who shoves racism in front of everything, someone who compares a person who speaks racist comments to Hitler, a person who murdered millions of people." (275K AIFF sound or 275K WAV sound)

As Goldman continued, his wife, Patti, stood behind him holding back tears. As he grew more emotional, Patti Goldman urged him to close his statement. At one point she pressed Goldman on the arm. He waved her away, telling her, "No." (1,598K QuickTime movie)

Goldman, whose emotional press conferences have become a fixture in the case, also attacked Cochran's use of bodyguards from the Nation of Islam.

"This man is sick," Goldman shouted. "He is absolutely sick. He walks about for the past days screaming, if you would, in a silent way, that his life has been threatened, and who does he chose to walk with -- guards from the Nation of Islam? Who does he connect himself with? This man is a horror walking around amongst us."

Why did fred think there was something wrong with Cochran using the NATION OF ISLAM as opposed to any other security agency?

By now everyone knows fred has a couple dozen screws missing from the cap.

He should have been asking Clark and Darden why they were doing what was reported they were doing instead of paying attention to the case.

There was wide spread critical media accounts of how the prosecution screwed this case up.But fred so filled with hate may not have been paying attention to what was going on in the court room. He thought he was owed a freebee because the defendant was oj. His after trial comments indicate a totally out of control person.imo

[martin II]

jury nullification

I call it prosecution DEFAULT for lack of facts.haha

[weezer]

Why did fred think there was something wrong with Cochran using the NATION OF ISLAM as opposed to any other security agency?

By now everyone knows fred has a couple dozen screws missing from the cap.

He should have been asking Clark and Darden why they were doing what was reported they were doing instead of paying attention to the case.

There was wide spread critical media accounts of how the prosecution screwed this case up.But fred so filled with hate may not have been paying attention to what was going on in the court room. He thought he was owed a freebee because the defendant was oj. His after trial comments indicate a totally out of control person.imo

I think you meant to say that orenthal's after trial behavior has shown a totally out of control person didn't you?

you seem to think it's odd that Mr. Goldman would hate the man he -- and most of the world -- believes murdered his son -- odd. I say odd because you have gone on and on about what YOU believe you're owed. Hmmm. I'm wondering if you don't have things a little backwards.

[William Anthony]

No my tactics have not changed since they are based on the evidence in this case. Do I occasionally make mistakes? Yes and I admit when I'm wrong. When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. When I said there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, I was correct. But when I said when samples of Simpson's hair were later taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff, I was mistaken. My mistake in no way changes the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have.
MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.
MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.
MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.
MS. CLARK: And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

bobaugust

I see a bunch of ifs, may be, mays and assumptions in this testimony, which is not the stuff of which criminal trials are or should be successfully prosecuted. In short, his testimony amounts to nothing. Simpson was arrested on the 17th, which the prosecution should have asked for a hair sample at that time. The most important point is that the prosecution had to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, since their samples were only consistent with Simpson's.

Your tactics have not changed, with all due respect. They are not based on evidence in this case, since the hair samples they collected had dandruff. Your statement that you occasionally make mistakes should have been followed by iyo, because imho you make mistakes more frequently than occasionally. Your statement that you admit your mistakes when wrong is not quite true. You never seem to unequivocally admit your mistakes as evidenced by this post. You blame everything for your mistakes, including your spell checker. You preface your mistakes with I was right on this that and the other. I am right that your tactics have not changed, when you claim your tactics are based on evidence but you have demonstrated that you do not have a complete understanding of what evidence is. I have heard of people who have been accused of always wanting to be right. I watched and found that they often used rationalization as a mechanism to explain their wrongness.

[martin II]

only the very weak minded bought the scheme team defense. imo

I don't know which one was more weak minded. maby Clark, maby Darden or maby both ,but google eyes was out of place in the middle of a murder case..:no:

[SlowHandSam]

bobaugust, it's good to see you posting again.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

this is a stupid, insensitive, assinine post.

It was in response to an offensive, ungracious, impolite, rude, overly stupefying,
inconsiderate, baiting and inflammatory post such as the one this is made in response to. Much as you may not like to confront it, animal-like human behavior is understandable when demonstrated by the oppressed but incomprehensible and a million times worse when committed by those that are sworn to protect and serve. What is overly stupefying by your post is "assinine".

[weezer]

I call it prosecution DEFAULT for lack of facts.haha

only the very gullible believe that. hahaha

imo

[martin II]

I think you meant to say that orenthal's after trial behavior has shown a totally out of control person didn't you?

you seem to think it's odd that Mr. Goldman would hate the man he -- and most of the world -- believes murdered his son -- odd. I say odd because you have gone on and on about what YOU believe you're owed. Hmmm. I'm wondering if you don't have things a little backwards.

I meant to say what i said.So why are you making such a stupid comment.

Why did fred think Cochran using THE NATION OF ISLAM as a security agency was some how wrong as opposed to using some other agency.
That is the issue. Sounds he outed himself with that comment.

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- I don't think you have a clue as to what the families felt:

"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- During a break in the O.J. Simpson murder trial Thursday, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman blasted lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran for invoking racism in his closing argument.

In a highly emotional statement to the press, Fred Goldman repeatedly called Cochran a racist and "disgusting." Goldman appeared to be most upset by Cochran's portrayal of former Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman as the mastermind behind an alleged scheme to frame Simpson. (113K AIFF sound or 113K WAV sound)

Goldman said Cochran would have the jury believe "because of racism" they should "put aside all other thought, all other reason and set his murdering client free."

His voice rising to a scream, Goldman said Cochran is "the worst kind of racist himself, someone who shoves racism in front of everything, someone who compares a person who speaks racist comments to Hitler, a person who murdered millions of people." (275K AIFF sound or 275K WAV sound)

As Goldman continued, his wife, Patti, stood behind him holding back tears. As he grew more emotional, Patti Goldman urged him to close his statement. At one point she pressed Goldman on the arm. He waved her away, telling her, "No." (1,598K QuickTime movie)

Goldman, whose emotional press conferences have become a fixture in the case, also attacked Cochran's use of bodyguards from the Nation of Islam.

"This man is sick," Goldman shouted. "He is absolutely sick. He walks about for the past days screaming, if you would, in a silent way, that his life has been threatened, and who does he chose to walk with -- guards from the Nation of Islam? Who does he connect himself with? This man is a horror walking around amongst us."

I remember his emotional display and wondered why he had not felt the same way when Blacks were murdered for no reason other than the color of their skin and did not protest against racism. However, read my post. I said, "if I had been a member of the family what I would have been insulted about.""I think you have no idea of what I posted. Perhaps, if the prosecution had not involved the convicted perjuring racist as a witness, then Fred would not have unnecessarily been upset with the magnificent one for providing his client the best defense possible and blamed the right party.

[weezer]

I meant to say what i said.So why are you making such a stupid comment.

Why did fred think Cochran using THE NATION OF ISLAM as a security agency was some how wrong as opposed to using some other agency.
That is the issue. Sounds he outed himself with that comment.

it wasn't a stupid comment martin.

it wasn't Mr. Goldman that was 'outed' -- it was the lead cockroach of the scheme team.

[martin II]

bobaugust, it's good to see you posting again.

Is this a expression that you feel you have some help for what you post.

[martin II]

it wasn't a stupid comment martin.

it wasn't Mr. Goldman that was 'outed' -- it was the lead cockroach of the scheme team.

Weezer
The quality of post here had improved some during the small time you were absent.Good things never last for long periods of time.imo

[weezer]

It was in response to an offensive, ungracious, impolite, rude, overly stupefying,
inconsiderate, baiting and inflammatory post such as the one this is made in response to. Much as you may not like to confront it, animal-like human behavior is understandable when demonstrated by the oppressed but incomprehensible and a million times worse when committed by those that are sworn to protect and serve. What is overly stupefying by your post is "assinine".

you continue to make insensitive, idiotic, assinine posts!

[William Anthony]

it wasn't a stupid comment martin.

it wasn't Mr. Goldman that was 'outed' -- it was the lead cockroach of the scheme team.

Can we ever win? We are criticized if we spend money in White neighborhoods and if we spend money in Black neighborhoods. Do you think there is an effort to prevent Black men from spending money?

[William Anthony]

you continue to make insensitive, idiotic, assinine posts!

That's because I am trying to communicate with you in a language that you will comprehend by your posts. :)

[SlowHandSam]

Is this a expression that you feel you have some help for what you post.

you just had to respond, huh?

no, it was what I stated. To bobaugust.

I'm pleased to see him back posting after his almost month hiatus.

[William Anthony]

Weezer
The quality of post here had improved some during the small time you were absent.Good things never last for long periods of time.imo

I had given that some thought as well and noticed something that I will share with you in a pm. Suffice it to say, I think I know for whom the bells toll.

[martin II]

I remember his emotional display and wondered why he had not felt the same way when Blacks were murdered for no reason other than the color of their skin and did not protest against racism. However, read my post. I said, "if I had been a member of the family what I would have been insulted about.""I think you have no idea of what I posted. Perhaps, if the prosecution had not involved the convicted perjuring racist as a witness, then Fred would not have unnecessarily been upset with the magnificent one for providing his client the best defense possible and blamed the right party.

Fred obviously did not pay attention to what was happening in the court room. Otherwise he would have been raising hell with the prosecution early on as most media and others had decided that the prosecution ( The sex team) had lost the case already. He was sitting there waiting on thr free bee
that he tought he automatically deserved because he was white and oj was black and everyone owed him what the wanted. THERE.

He should have slapped Darden and his daughter should have slapped clark.
Instead he attack Cochran and outed himself as having RAcist views against THE NATION OF ISLAM.IMO

[William Anthony]

To bobaugust.

I'm pleased to see him back posting after his almost month hiatus.

Joy is often all too fleeting. ;) :cool:

[weezer]

Weezer
The quality of post here had improved some during the small time you were absent.Good things never last for long periods of time.imo

I have neither the desire or inclination to indulge you -- :punch: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I have neither the desire or inclination to indulge you -- :punch: :seeya:

That sound's strangely familiar. "Imitation is the highest form of flattery". ;) :cool:

[martin II]

I have neither the desire or inclination to indulge you -- :punch: :seeya:

No need to. just cut the nasty post.

[William Anthony]

No my tactics have not changed since they are based on the evidence in this case. Do I occasionally make mistakes? Yes and I admit when I'm wrong. When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. When I said there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, I was correct. But when I said when samples of Simpson's hair were later taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff, I was mistaken. My mistake in no way changes the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: Sir, have you ever examined the hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more?
MR. DEEDRICK: I have.
MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.
MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.
MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.
MS. CLARK: And the fact that the hairs inside the knit cap found at Bundy, which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant, the fact that they did not have dandruff, did that cause you to rule the Defendant out as the possible source for those hairs?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, it is not one of the characteristics that is used for exclusion.
MS. CLARK: Why not?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there.

bobaugust

Please, post Ms. Moore's testimony where she testified that Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23rd.

[limakey]

Doesn't it bother anyone that both the defense and the DA's had to have body guards at all? Isn't that the real issue rather then which agency provided security?

[martin II]

Doesn't it bother anyone that both the defense and the DA's had to have body guards at all? Isn't that the real issue rather then which agency provided security?


I think so.

It just shows how some observers can get just too involved or how they can maby invest too much of themselves into something that does not impact them directly.

[William Anthony]

Doesn't it bother anyone that both the defense and the DA's had to have body guards at all? Isn't that the real issue rather then which agency provided security?

What it does for me is increases my appreciation for the magnificent one's insight.

[William Anthony]

It applies to you as well. Where are your posts to the truth? BobAugust has your measure. How did Simpson's hair get on Goldman's shirt? Your rants (and I understand that word when it's applied to you) haven't explained that. No doubt you'll go off into some totally off topic rant. H'm. Elvis maybe?

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell View Post
It applies to you as well. Where are your posts to the truth? BobAugust has your measure. How did Simpson's hair get on Goldman's shirt? Your rants (and I understand that word when it's applied to you) haven't explained that. No doubt you'll go off into some totally off topic rant. H'm. Elvis maybe?

But when I said when samples of Simpson's hair were later taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff, I was mistaken.

Do you want to apologize, now? Do you want to admit you were wrong about who has whose measure?

[William Anthony]

Thanks, bobaugust. I was wondering if any dandruff was noted when his hair was taken for examination. It kind of blows the whole dandruff theory out of the water.

How about you, tvdinner, are you ready to admit you were duped?

[William Anthony]

"MR. COCHRAN: Now, I'd like to direct your attention back to the month of May of 1994. Do you recall a date toward the end of May of 1994 that you had occasion to cut Mr. Simpson's hair?

MS. MOORE: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the approximate date that you did Mr. Simpson's hair toward the end of May of 1994?

MS. MOORE: Yes. I can tell them because it was my birthday.

MR. COCHRAN: And your birthday was what?

MS. MOORE: May 23rd.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you remember what day of the week that was?

MS. MOORE: It was on a Monday.

MR. COCHRAN: And in your barber shop, do you have--like other barber shops in the community, do you have a day when you're normally off?

MS. MOORE: That's Monday.

MR. COCHRAN: Monday is your day off?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so was that--May 23rd, was that a--1994, was that a Monday?

MS. MOORE: Yes, it was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that was your birthday; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell the jurors, members of the jury how it came that you did Mr. Simpson's hair and where you did it.

MS. MOORE: Uh, I did his hair at his home.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you remember about what time you arrived there, Miss Moore?

MS. MOORE: Approximately 6:30ish. I guess 6:30.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you arrived there, tell us what happened then, if anything.

MS. MOORE: Well, when I arrived there, he was home alone and we went--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, objection. I would like to approach.

THE COURT: Yes. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)"

[William Anthony]

"MS. CLARK: This gives us some clue--

THE COURT: Hold on. We're over at sidebar. Where are we going with this, Mr. Cochran?

MR. COCHRAN: This is the last time she cut his hair. Judge, I'm going to just bring out the last time she cut the Defendant's hair at Rockingham, what condition his hair was in.

MS. CLARK: That's all? Who was there, I want to hear about that. Why is that relevant?

MR. COCHRAN: Why is it relevant who was there?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: It's very relevant.

MS. CLARK: Then let's hear what it is.

MR. COCHRAN: You're the Judge. I'm not--

MS. CLARK: All right. Your Honor, you know, we've seen--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Who's there? Who's there?

MR. COCHRAN: Gigi cooked the dinner. The facts are, they had--Gigi Guarin is the housekeeper. She cooked dinner. I think the director, one of his directors of a movie or something. They had dinner. After that, OJ was watching Frogman or something like that. She cut his hair. That was it. I think Paula was there. That was it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: No big thing.

MS. CLARK: What is the relevance of Paula being there?

MR. COCHRAN: Because she was there.

THE COURT: The last time he had his hair cut?

MS. CLARK: May I point out to the Court, if that is the offer, an unreliable offer of proof was made informally to Mr. Darden. Mr. Darden received the following offer of proof off the record just before we began: That she would testify to the fact that his hair was never treated. And we have now heard extensive testimony about dandruff and now about the last day she cut his hair. I am going to ask the Court to require an offer of proof and an offer that is complete and honest in the future when we have witnesses who have no statements. This is a trial by ambush now.

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: May I--

THE COURT: No. No. Let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: That was wrong.

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor."

[William Anthony]

"MR. COCHRAN: I think I was just asking before we were interrupted who was present at the time that you arrived there and then what happened after that.

MS. MOORE: Uh, Mr. Simpson was home alone.

MR. COCHRAN: And then what happened after you saw him, you saw Mr. Simpson?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then what did you do?

MS. MOORE: We went into the family room and he was showing me a new musical system that he had installed and was kind of like a little toy for him. He was showing me how it works; it plays upstairs and downstairs and this room, et cetera.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. First time you had seen that?

MS. MOORE: First time I had, yes. I had seen that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And what happened after that?

MS. MOORE: And we'd just sit there and we listened to the music and we were waiting for the rest of the guests to arrive.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did some other people arrive?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And who arrived, ma'am?

MS. MOORE: Uh, it was a lady, I can't remember her name, but he introduced me to her and I forgot her name, but he was--she was his director.

MR. COCHRAN: Director in what?

MS. MOORE: In I suppose the movies and maybe frogman. I'm not sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And--

MS. MOORE: And--

MR. COCHRAN: She arrived?

MS. MOORE: Yes, she arrived.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did someone else arrive?

MS. MOORE: A little later on, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who was that?

MS. MOORE: Paula Barbieri.

MR. COCHRAN: Paul Barbieri?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Ma'am, if you would, Miss Moore, would you allow Mr. Cochran to finish asking you the question before you start to speak because the court reporter can only report one person talking at a time, okay?

MS. MOORE: Okay.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Cochran, would you let her finish answering before you start to ask the next question?

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry, your Honor. I certainly will.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: So that we're clear for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, tell us the order that people arrived there on that evening.

MS. MOORE: Well, I came first and then the--his director came and Paula was last.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you ever seen or did you know Paula Barbieri before that day?

MS. MOORE: Yes. I had seen Paula prior to that."

[martin II]

William Anthony, I hope you're not considering revisiting the underwear discussion or the Darden/Clarke connection. What does that have to do with whether or not OJ Simpson killed two people?

they were part of the oj trial.

[William Anthony]

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after everybody arrived--and by the way, was the director a male or female?

MS. MOORE: She was--it was a female.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after everyone arrived, tell us what happened then.

MS. MOORE: We had a dinner.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And who prepared dinner, if you recall?

MS. MOORE: Gigi.

MR. COCHRAN: And is that Gigi Guarin, g-u-a-r-I-n?

MS. MOORE: Gigi is the maid.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Is that the lady who is a housekeeper there?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Housekeeper.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So did all of you have dinner together?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after you had dinner, what happened after that?

MS. MOORE: His director left and Paula stayed for a while and then she talked for a while and then she left, and then I cut his hair and he put the frogman video on. So while I cut his hair, he watched a video.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you able to see the video yourself at that time?

MS. MOORE: Well, I couldn't concentrate on it because I was cutting his hair, but I did see--you know, look at it a little bit.

MR. COCHRAN: So you then proceeded to cut his hair; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And about what time was that if you recall on the May 23rd date?

MS. MOORE: Umm, probably about 8:30, 9:00 maybe.

MR. COCHRAN: And on that occasion, with regard to cutting his hair, you did not shampoo his hair, did you?

MS. MOORE: No. No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He didn't have any chemicals in his hair, did he?

MS. MOORE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall whether or not you did anything about the--if he had any gray at that time?

MS. MOORE: Yeah. I clipped the grays out.

MR. COCHRAN: And was this hair cut similar to other haircuts you gave him over the course of the 16 years you did his hair?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, so in addition to being--in addition to Mr. Simpson being a patron or customer of yours, was he someone that who also over the years became a friend of yours also?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, save some time and ask you this. You didn't see Mr. Simpson on June 12th, 1994, did you?

MS. MOORE: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And was May 23rd, 1994 about the last time you cut his hair?

MS. MOORE: It was the last time, yes."

[William Anthony]

"CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Miss Moore.

MS. MOORE: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Dandruff, that's a condition of the scalp, isn't that?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And just from a layperson's understanding, because that's all I have, it's when your scalp gets dry, correct?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you have that condition where your scalp gets dry, if you comb your hair, you're going to pull those flakes off the scalp; is that right?

MS. MOORE: This is very true.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so when you would comb his hair when he had dandruff, those flakes would come out, correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Sometimes, yes.

MS. CLARK: Sometimes yes and sometimes no?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, if I--the more vigorous I comb it, the more it would come out. Sometimes I would just brush it and cut it. I didn't use a comb.

MS. CLARK: Right. So if you didn't use a comb, even if he had dandruff, you wouldn't disturb any flakes on the hair. Is that a fair statement?

MS. MOORE: That's true.

MS. CLARK: And so if his hairs came out by themselves, if they were naturally shed, you know what I mean, without being pulled out by combing, then they might not show any flakes of dandruff: Is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: Would you repeat the question, please?

MS. CLARK: Sure. If you did not comb the hair, if his hair was just--you know, we shed hairs every day, don't we?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Unfortunately.

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. In that process, if you just shed your hair naturally and you're not combing, then the dandruff is not going to come off on the hair; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: Dandruff's not going to come off on the--on where? I don't understand the question.

MS. CLARK: When you--you just indicated when you comb the hair vigorously, dandruff will come off.

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And if you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off.

MR. COCHRAN: I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: If you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there. I'm not sure really. I guess it will just stay on the scalp.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And it won't being showing up in the hair, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. MOORE: I can't say that. I don't know.

THE COURT: Ma'am, ma'am. When I sustain the objection, that means don't answer the question.

MS. MOORE: Okay.

THE COURT: Next question.

MS. CLARK: So sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he did not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And sometimes in the summer when you saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And dandruff, can that be caused by a change in hygiene like what you eat and how you take care of yourself?

MS. MOORE: Umm, I'm not sure.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. She indicated she's not a dermatologist. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. She's indicated she's not sure.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Next question.

MS. CLARK: For example, if you have a change in shampoo, can that cause dandruff?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: I'm not sure.

MS. CLARK: You're not sure?

MS. MOORE: I'm not sure if a change in shampoo--it--that's--yeah, it could have. It could cause it and could help it.

MS. CLARK: Aggravate it?

MS. MOORE: It could cause it, make it better or make it worse.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So what about a change in the type of water you use? Could that cause dandruff or affect it or aggravate it?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer will stand.

MS. CLARK: Now, dandruff can occur in a one- to two-day period. Is that fair to say?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Without foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How long does it, if you know, because you've been treating--how many people have you had as customers over the 30 years?

MS. MOORE: How many people I've had as customers?

MS. CLARK: Regular customers. Let's narrow it down some.

MS. MOORE: I really don't know the answer to that one.

MS. CLARK: Would it be fair to say thousands?

MS. MOORE: No."

bobaugust,

Please, provide the testimony where Ms. Moore testified Simpson did not have dandruff on May, 23rd when she cut his hair?

[William Anthony]

When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. [/B]

bobaugust

I believe the saying is, "The proof is in the pudding", (shall we say, posting).

[William Anthony]

they were part of the oj trial.

Good morning,

Glad to see you posting truthfully.

[William Anthony]

This from the cross of the prosecution's 12th witness, IIRC.

"CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS SHAHIAN.

A: AFTERNOON.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THIS LETTER, THE LETTER THAT'S NOW ON THE BOARD, DID YOU READ THE LETTER THAT DAY OR HAVE YOU READ IT SINCE THAT TIME?

A: I READ IT THAT MORNING, YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU READ IT SINCE THAT TIME ALSO?

A: JUST HERE, YES.

Q: YOU READ IT HERE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT STARTS OFF THERE IN THE FIRST SENTENCE THERE, "ON ADVISE OF LEGAL COUNSEL --"

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAD A QUESTION I WAS ABOUT TO ASK ABOUT IF I CAN BE PERMITTED TO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: "ON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL," THEN IT GOES ON TO MAKE A STATEMENT. WERE YOU AWARE THAT LEROY B. TAFT, THE PERSON THAT IS CC'D ON THIS LETTER, ESQUIRE, WAS MR. SIMPSON'S BUSINESS LAWYER BACK IN JUNE OF 1994?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND YOU WERE AWARE HE HAD BEEN HIS BUSINESS LAWYER FOR SOME 20 PLUS YEARS BEFORE THAT TIME?

A: YES, I KNEW THAT.

Q: AND MISS SHAHIAN, WERE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT MARVIN GOODFRIEND WAS HIS CPA BACK AT THAT TIME AND HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME BEFORE THAT DATE?

A: NO, I DID NOT KNOW WHO HIS CPA WAS.

Q: YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT?

A: NO.

Q: BOTH THOSE PERSONS, LEROY B. TAFT, ESQUIRE, AND MARVIN GOODFRIEND ARE AT THE BOTTOM AS HAVING BEEN CC'D?

A: I DO REMEMBER.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WHEREIN THERE'S AN INDICATION THAT MR. SIMPSON CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY COURSE OF ACTION THAT MIGHT INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY BE MISLEADING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OR THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD? DO YOU RECALL READING THAT AT SOME POINT ON THAT DATE; YES OR NO?

A: YES.

Q: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. "

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

psst -- those shows were not reality. . .DUH

Sorry, I missed this post. Those shows portrayed a reality that existed in some neighborhoods or communities, if you will. I am sure you have heard of existentialism. I think the jurors used it when they concluded that the beating Rodney King endured was necessary, because he was resisting arrest during the entire beating. I believe the criminal jury in the Simpson criminal case used it to conclude there was police corruption.

[limakey]

Is it just me or does Clark and Deedrick do the Legalize Mambo on the issue of dandruff? Deedrick says "he assumes" that an inmates hair may change while in jail---why didn't Clark just ask him if has examined hair samples from inmates before and compared them to any hair samples that were found at the scene.

Also, if Deedrick is correct, couldn't the DA's have made a motion to get new hair samples from Simpson using Deedrick's "Assumptions"?

[William Anthony]

Is it just me or does Clark and Deedrick do the Legalize Mambo on the issue of dandruff? Deedrick says "he assumes" that an inmates hair may change while in jail---why didn't Clark just ask him if has examined hair samples from inmates before and compared them to any hair samples that were found at the scene.

Also, if Deedrick is correct, couldn't the DA's have made a motion to get new hair samples from Simpson using Deedrick's "Assumptions"?

Good morning,

As usual you introduce logic into the illogical. We must remember which party bore the burden of proof. Coulda, woulda and shouldas are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and may not be proof by a preponderance.

[limakey]

Martin,

I answer your post from the civil trial thread here. IMO, I believe Dr. Golden was not called because of the time he/or his assistant wrote down regarding the last phone call from Mrs. Brown to Nicole.

I really think that the DA's did want to destroy Dr. Golden and put him in the same boat as Fung and Mozzola and others. As you know, their boat was made out of cardboard.

I also think that is why Mrs. Brown never took the stand in the criminal case. It never made any sense to me why the DA's wouldn't call Mrs. Brown because he was close to both Nicole and OJ. I believe that Nicole and Denise did not have that close of a relationship but were working on mending broken fences. I also got the impression during that time that Nicole was closer to her middle sister and again, I wonder why she wasn't called.

There is something just not right about that phone call, IMO.

[limakey]

William,

Lets give the DA's their props for trying their case on the "illogical" and winning in the court of public opinon.

I may be wrong but aren't their barber shops in prison? Wouldn't a prison barber been a better witness, at least to introduce his experience and how the hair can change?

Of course, it is possible that the barber is an inmate but again, I am not impressed with the DA's efforts with this evidence. Of course, perhaps again they should be given props for not asking any questions on this issue that they didn't know the answer to---such as asking Deedrick if he compared other hair found in hats from Simpson's home and Nicole's home and what were the results.

I also remember that Deedrick never said where the blue-black fibers came from. He never said that these fibers came from a garment nor did he ever use the words, "sweat suit". AT least I am pretty sure he didn't.

[William Anthony]

William,

Lets give the DA's their props for trying their case on the "illogical" and winning in the court of public opinon.

I may be wrong but aren't their barber shops in prison? Wouldn't a prison barber been a better witness, at least to introduce his experience and how the hair can change?

Of course, it is possible that the barber is an inmate but again, I am not impressed with the DA's efforts with this evidence. Of course, perhaps again they should be given props for not asking any questions on this issue that they didn't know the answer to---such as asking Deedrick if he compared other hair found in hats from Simpson's home and Nicole's home and what were the results.

I also remember that Deedrick never said where the blue-black fibers came from. He never said that these fibers came from a garment nor did he ever use the words, "sweat suit". AT least I am pretty sure he didn't.

I did not mean to say that the DAs did not do their strongest with the weakest, which is why it took so many weeks, imho, with irrelevant and immaterial questions as to whether or not Arnelle and the first Ms. Simpson used hair dye.

[tv]

hmmm -- I don't think you have a clue as to what the families felt:

"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- During a break in the O.J. Simpson murder trial Thursday, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman blasted lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran for invoking racism in his closing argument.

In a highly emotional statement to the press, Fred Goldman repeatedly called Cochran a racist and "disgusting." Goldman appeared to be most upset by Cochran's portrayal of former Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman as the mastermind behind an alleged scheme to frame Simpson. (113K AIFF sound or 113K WAV sound)

Goldman said Cochran would have the jury believe "because of racism" they should "put aside all other thought, all other reason and set his murdering client free."

His voice rising to a scream, Goldman said Cochran is "the worst kind of racist himself, someone who shoves racism in front of everything, someone who compares a person who speaks racist comments to Hitler, a person who murdered millions of people." (275K AIFF sound or 275K WAV sound)

As Goldman continued, his wife, Patti, stood behind him holding back tears. As he grew more emotional, Patti Goldman urged him to close his statement. At one point she pressed Goldman on the arm. He waved her away, telling her, "No." (1,598K QuickTime movie)

Goldman, whose emotional press conferences have become a fixture in the case, also attacked Cochran's use of bodyguards from the Nation of Islam.

"This man is sick," Goldman shouted. "He is absolutely sick. He walks about for the past days screaming, if you would, in a silent way, that his life has been threatened, and who does he chose to walk with -- guards from the Nation of Islam? Who does he connect himself with? This man is a horror walking around amongst us."

I remember this well. Mr. Goldman was absolutely right in his assessment of Johnnie Cochran and what was going on in this trial.

[limakey]

William,

This may sound like a dumb question, but here is goes.......In my experience, there is a huge difference between a barber and beautician. My son refuses to go a beautician, he HAS to go the barber. Is it the same way for African Americans?

I thought Clark's comments about the first Mrs. Simpson's and Arnelle's hair were just plain dumb because my first thought was why would they go to a barber rather then a beautician. Maybe I am just stuck in the time warp on these type of issues!

[William Anthony]

I remember this well. Mr. Goldman was absolutely right in his assessment of Johnnie Cochran and what was going on in this trial.

That had nothing to do with my post on what I would have been insulted about and I was not insulted by Goldman's rants, because I realized that he didn't have the legal knowledge to understand what is relevant and why.

[William Anthony]

William,

This may sound like a dumb question, but here is goes.......In my experience, there is a huge difference between a barber and beautician. My son refuses to go a beautician, he HAS to go the barber. Is it the same way for African Americans?

I thought Clark's comments about the first Mrs. Simpson's and Arnelle's hair were just plain dumb because my first thought was why would they go to a barber rather then a beautician. Maybe I am just stuck in the time warp on these type of issues!

No question is dumb, with the exception of some the prosecution asked. I have never lived the lifestyle of the rich and famous. There are barbers that dye and shampoo hair. I do not call them beauticians. I asked how much it would cost for a hair cut by a beautician and she quoted me a price that was twice the price my barber charged. A neighborhood barber shop in the Black community is much like the movie. I am like your son and prefer the ambiance of the barber shop.

[limakey]

TV,

If you keep the evidence exactly the same but exchange Mr. Simpson with Mr. Goldman, do you really think Fred Goldman would not have wanted MF's Nazi past to come out? Do you think Mr. Goldman would have not only wanted the world to hear those tapes, especially the part where he talks about "Jew Lawyers" but also the jurors?

Do you think Mr. Goldman would have wanted the cartoons on Fuhrman's desk to be displayed to the jury? Do you think he would have wanted W. Andy Purdy to testify about the Nazi symbol Fuhrman painted on his locker because he married a Jewish woman?

I maybe wrong, but if Ron Goldman was in the defendant's chair, I am sure Mr. Goldman would not have conducted the same interview. In fact, I am sure, if the judge denied this evidence into the trial, he would have had the same emotional reaction but would have cursed the judge for not allowing it. Would have accused the DA's of trying to bury a key witness against their son.

BTW, according to Joe Bosco's book, he says that Clark gave Fred a signal to conduct this press conference. He said Clark and Fred locked eyes, Marcia nodded her head and Fred went in search of the courthouse steps. He claims he saw it. Just for your FYI.

[tv]

Fred obviously did not pay attention to what was happening in the court room. Otherwise he would have been raising hell with the prosecution early on as most media and others had decided that the prosecution ( The sex team) had lost the case already. He was sitting there waiting on thr free bee
that he tought he automatically deserved because he was white and oj was black and everyone owed him what the wanted. THERE.
He should have slapped Darden and his daughter should have slapped clark.
Instead he attack Cochran and outed himself as having RAcist views against THE NATION OF ISLAM.IMO

Martin, this bashing of the family of Ron Goldman is sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself. He did NOT think he deserved anything for being white. I'm sick and tired of your racist comments against white people while you constantly whine about the black experience. Blacks aren't the only people that have feelings. You make fun of and denigrate a man who lost his son in the worst way possible. Why don't you stop blaming everything that happens on white people and their supposed racism? I don't care if you report me to the moderators for telling you this, I'll take my punishment but someone needs to put a stop to your disgusting comments about Fred Goldman and his family. You wouldn't think he had racist views against the Nation of Islam if the bodyguards had been white. I'm not surprised you think the Goldmans should have slapped the prosecutors...you seem to think violence is an acceptable way to handle problems. OJ Simpson is a double-murdering piece of crap. GET OVER YOURSELF -- SO THERE. :flamemad:

[William Anthony]

William,

This may sound like a dumb question, but here is goes.......In my experience, there is a huge difference between a barber and beautician. My son refuses to go a beautician, he HAS to go the barber. Is it the same way for African Americans?

I thought Clark's comments about the first Mrs. Simpson's and Arnelle's hair were just plain dumb because my first thought was why would they go to a barber rather then a beautician. Maybe I am just stuck in the time warp on these type of issues!

Men get designer cuts, while women get hair styles. :)

[tv]

TV,

If you keep the evidence exactly the same but exchange Mr. Simpson with Mr. Goldman, do you really think Fred Goldman would not have wanted MF's Nazi past to come out? Do you think Mr. Goldman would have not only wanted the world to hear those tapes, especially the part where he talks about "Jew Lawyers" but also the jurors?

Do you think Mr. Goldman would have wanted the cartoons on Fuhrman's desk to be displayed to the jury? Do you think he would have wanted W. Andy Purdy to testify about the Nazi symbol Fuhrman painted on his locker because he married a Jewish woman?

I maybe wrong, but if Ron Goldman was in the defendant's chair, I am sure Mr. Goldman would not have conducted the same interview. In fact, I am sure, if the judge denied this evidence into the trial, he would have had the same emotional reaction but would have cursed the judge for not allowing it. Would have accused the DA's of trying to bury a key witness against their son.

BTW, according to Joe Bosco's book, he says that Clark gave Fred a signal to conduct this press conference. He said Clark and Fred locked eyes, Marcia nodded her head and Fred went in search of the courthouse steps. He claims he saw it. Just for your FYI.

limakey, for your information those are myths about the swatiska on the locker and the cartoons. Fred Goldman wasn't defending Mark Fuhrman he just wanted to trial to be about the murder of his son not Mark Fuhrman's tapes. Who cares about the press conference and why it happened? Are you jumping on the bandwagon of thinking all he cares about is money? I think it's horrible to be so critical of a man who has lost his son to a savage butchering.

[William Anthony]

Martin, this bashing of the family of Ron Goldman is sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself. He did NOT think he deserved anything for being white. I'm sick and tired of your racist comments against white people while you constantly whine about the black experience. Blacks aren't the only people that have feelings. You make fun of and denigrate a man who lost his son in the worst way possible. Why don't you stop blaming everything that happens on white people and their supposed racism? I don't care if you report me to the moderators for telling you this, I'll take my punishment but someone needs to put a stop to your disgusting comments about Fred Goldman and his family. You wouldn't think he had racist views against the Nation of Islam if the bodyguards had been white. I'm not surprised you think the Goldmans should have slapped the prosecutors...you seem to think violence is an acceptable way to handle problems. OJ Simpson is a double-murdering piece of crap. GET OVER YOURSELF -- SO THERE. :flamemad:

With all due respect, your ire is duly noted. I thank you for it because it made me realize that Goldman's tirade was premature, because the judge only allowed, IIRC, the four most innocuous incidents of MF's racism and, because the tapes were played to lay a foundation for their admissibility in a 302 hearing. Therefore, contrary to Goldman's claims, the jury did not hear all the vile remarks MF made. I disagree with martin that they should have slapped the prosecution; they should have directed their anger toward MF, imho.

[limakey]

TV,

IMO, if a person expresses their grief in public and give a press conference that denounces another human being, then I think they are fair game when it comes to comments being made about them.

There is no doubt Fred and his family were emotional about case. There is no doubt that they feel that race is the only reason why Mr. Simpson is free. However, they were fed all this information by the DA's and the LAPD. They were lead to belief that the case was stronger then it was and they were never prepared for the defense's case. The DA's knew they had major problems of evidence but instead, set up Fuhrman to be their number one scapegoat. The majority of the media "adopted" the Goldman family and they received a tremendous amount of support from the public. So for all those months were confident of a victory that the DA's knew they would not win.

Just like the defense lawyers must prepare their client for a conviction, the DA's should have been honest with the Goldman family and tell them that the case was in trouble and it had nothing to do with race.

IMO, if you feel Mr. Goldman was perfectly justified for his emotions in that press conference then you must also feel that Simpson's sister also were perfectly justified in their reaction and their words in the press conference.

And, FYI, Johnnie Cochran did not write that part of the closing, another lawyer, who is Jewish, who lost family in Hitler's camps, wrote that about Hitler. And JC never compared Fuhrman to Hitler and the murders committed in his name, but he compared that these were two men who have extreme racial views and were in positions of power to abuse the rights of those human beings they found less to be human.

He also made it clear that both Hitler and Fuhrman were not shy about their racial beliefs. Never did he compare the deeds of Hitler vs the deeds of Fuhrman. There is a big difference between ripping up a driver's license or picking the scab off of a wound and sending men, women and children into the ovens. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, if a person expresses their grief in public and give a press conference that denounces another human being, then I think they are fair game when it comes to comments being made about them.

There is no doubt Fred and his family were emotional about case. There is no doubt that they feel that race is the only reason why Mr. Simpson is free. However, they were fed all this information by the DA's and the LAPD. They were lead to belief that the case was stronger then it was and they were never prepared for the defense's case. The DA's knew they had major problems of evidence but instead, set up Fuhrman to be their number one scapegoat. The majority of the media "adopted" the Goldman family and they received a tremendous amount of support from the public. So for all those months were confident of a victory that the DA's knew they would not win.

Just like the defense lawyers must prepare their client for a conviction, the DA's should have been honest with the Goldman family and tell them that the case was in trouble and it had nothing to do with race.

IMO, if you feel Mr. Goldman was perfectly justified for his emotions in that press conference then you must also feel that Simpson's sister also were perfectly justified in their reaction and their words in the press conference.

And, FYI, Johnnie Cochran did not write that part of the closing, another lawyer, who is Jewish, who lost family in Hitler's camps, wrote that about Hitler. And JC never compared Fuhrman to Hitler and the murders committed in his name, but he compared that these were two men who have extreme racial views and were in positions of power to abuse the rights of those human beings they found less to be human.

He also made it clear that both Hitler and Fuhrman were not shy about their racial beliefs. Never did he compare the deeds of Hitler vs the deeds of Fuhrman. There is a big difference between ripping up a driver's license or picking the scab off of a wound and sending men, women and children into the ovens. IMO.

limakey, I notice you disagree with almost everything I have said but don't say a word to Martin about his racist comments. You don't have to keep telling me things for my information. I'm familiar with most of the nuances of the trial. Not all, but most. I haven't mentioned the Hitler comment or Simpson's sisters and have no desire to discuss them. I'm appalled that a man who has lost his son is considered 'fair game'. Appalled but not surprised.

[William Anthony]

TV,

IMO, if a person expresses their grief in public and give a press conference that denounces another human being, then I think they are fair game when it comes to comments being made about them.

There is no doubt Fred and his family were emotional about case. There is no doubt that they feel that race is the only reason why Mr. Simpson is free. However, they were fed all this information by the DA's and the LAPD. They were lead to belief that the case was stronger then it was and they were never prepared for the defense's case. The DA's knew they had major problems of evidence but instead, set up Fuhrman to be their number one scapegoat. The majority of the media "adopted" the Goldman family and they received a tremendous amount of support from the public. So for all those months were confident of a victory that the DA's knew they would not win.

Just like the defense lawyers must prepare their client for a conviction, the DA's should have been honest with the Goldman family and tell them that the case was in trouble and it had nothing to do with race.

IMO, if you feel Mr. Goldman was perfectly justified for his emotions in that press conference then you must also feel that Simpson's sister also were perfectly justified in their reaction and their words in the press conference.

And, FYI, Johnnie Cochran did not write that part of the closing, another lawyer, who is Jewish, who lost family in Hitler's camps, wrote that about Hitler. And JC never compared Fuhrman to Hitler and the murders committed in his name, but he compared that these were two men who have extreme racial views and were in positions of power to abuse the rights of those human beings they found less to be human.

He also made it clear that both Hitler and Fuhrman were not shy about their racial beliefs. Never did he compare the deeds of Hitler vs the deeds of Fuhrman. There is a big difference between ripping up a driver's license or picking the scab off of a wound and sending men, women and children into the ovens. IMO.

If I might, I agree with most of your post. I agree that their actions are different but their words are the same.

[limakey]

TV,

No those are not myths. Lucianne Coleman testified about the conversation she had with Detective Purdy. Later, when the defense wanted to introduce his notebook into evidence, the detective burned it. He made it quite clear he was petrified of MF and his buddies.

If you have read Fuhrman's book as well as Darden's book, you find confirmation of these events. However, Fuhrman puts his own spin on why he had such items.

In regards to Mr. Goldman and money. I will be honest with you, I think that is is a matter of princepal between both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. In other words, lets say the civil trial jury awarded the Goldman family $1,000.00 in damages, Mr. Simpson would still have refused to pay it and the Goldman's would have refused to accept it. I do not believe money is motive for the Goldmans.

I do understand what Mr. Goldman was trying to say, however, it was the DA's who treated MF like a choir boy and was the perfect little detective, slammed the defense for even questioning this "hero" of the streets until her closing arguements where she says that we don't even want people like MF on our planet, let alone being a cop.

And again, the race issue was only a concern on the glove. Cochran made it clear that any other police misconduct or rush to judgement was made because they truly believed that Simpson was guilty. The defense never tried to lump all the detectives as racist cops who had nothing better to do then frame his client.

I agree with William and Martin---the Goldman family should be outraged but not at the defense.

[tv]

TV,

No those are not myths. Lucianne Coleman testified about the conversation she had with Detective Purdy. Later, when the defense wanted to introduce his notebook into evidence, the detective burned it. He made it quite clear he was petrified of MF and his buddies.

If you have read Fuhrman's book as well as Darden's book, you find confirmation of these events. However, Fuhrman puts his own spin on why he had such items.

In regards to Mr. Goldman and money. I will be honest with you, I think that is is a matter of princepal between both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. In other words, lets say the civil trial jury awarded the Goldman family $1,000.00 in damages, Mr. Simpson would still have refused to pay it and the Goldman's would have refused to accept it. I do not believe money is motive for the Goldmans.

I do understand what Mr. Goldman was trying to say, however, it was the DA's who treated MF like a choir boy and was the perfect little detective, slammed the defense for even questioning this "hero" of the streets until her closing arguements where she says that we don't even want people like MF on our planet, let alone being a cop.

And again, the race issue was only a concern on the glove. Cochran made it clear that any other police misconduct or rush to judgement was made because they truly believed that Simpson was guilty. The defense never tried to lump all the detectives as racist cops who had nothing better to do then frame his client.

I agree with William and Martin---the Goldman family should be outraged but not at the defense.They are outraged at the man who butchered their son like a side of beef and rightly so. Their anger at the defense is was not misplaced no matter how much you think it was. Shapiro was right when he said the race card was dealt from the bottom of the deck. It was the only way to win an acquittal because the evidence was insurmountable otherwise. You've yet to post any proof of tampering or planting so I'll stick with my belief that it didn't happen.

[limakey]

TV,

IMO, I believe that when it comes to issues such as race, many times, no matter how hard you try, you can't truly ever explain yourself. Its like trying to describe the color red to a blind man or the beauty of music to a deaf person. Sure, a deaf person can "feel" the beat and dance to it, but they can't hear the words to the song.

I do not feel comfortable about making any comments to Martin or William regarding their feelings about such issues. I'm not African-American, I have never been called a racial slur. Any adversity that I have felt is because of my religion as well as my gender.

However, I have posted my views that I believe if you take race totally out of this case, nothing changes and the verdict would still be the same. I have always posted that while I believe MF to be a racist, I do not believe that was his motive if he planted the glove.

I do believe race was introduced into this case by the media, months before the trial even started. Do I believe it was done on purpose??? No, but then again, I'm not African-American.

As for Mr. Goldman and being fair game, he is, just like any public figure. However, that does not mean I agree with everything that is said about him. Just like I think Simpson fair game. You live your life in the public eye, it is a risk you take.

[William Anthony]

TV,

IMO, I believe that when it comes to issues such as race, many times, no matter how hard you try, you can't truly ever explain yourself. Its like trying to describe the color red to a blind man or the beauty of music to a deaf person. Sure, a deaf person can "feel" the beat and dance to it, but they can't hear the words to the song.

I do not feel comfortable about making any comments to Martin or William regarding their feelings about such issues. I'm not African-American, I have never been called a racial slur. Any adversity that I have felt is because of my religion as well as my gender.

However, I have posted my views that I believe if you take race totally out of this case, nothing changes and the verdict would still be the same. I have always posted that while I believe MF to be a racist, I do not believe that was his motive if he planted the glove.

I do believe race was introduced into this case by the media, months before the trial even started. Do I believe it was done on purpose??? No, but then again, I'm not African-American.

As for Mr. Goldman and being fair game, he is, just like any public figure. However, that does not mean I agree with everything that is said about him. Just like I think Simpson fair game. You live your life in the public eye, it is a risk you take.

Very well stated.

[SlowHandSam]

I agree with tvdinner that race came "from the bottom of the deck".
I also agree with limakey that the media had a big hand in it.

However, I disagree that you have to be AA in order to have or be offended by racial slurs.

Race had/has no part in the trial or this forum. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I agree with tvdinner that race came "from the bottom of the deck".
I also agree with limakey that the media had a big hand in it.

However, I disagree that you have to be AA in order to have or be offended by racial slurs.

Race had/has no part in the trial or this forum. IMO.

I respectfully disagree, since there are so many claims that it was an Issue in the Criminal Trial and your post indicates just this.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, I believe that when it comes to issues such as race, many times, no matter how hard you try, you can't truly ever explain yourself. Its like trying to describe the color red to a blind man or the beauty of music to a deaf person. Sure, a deaf person can "feel" the beat and dance to it, but they can't hear the words to the song.

I do not feel comfortable about making any comments to Martin or William regarding their feelings about such issues. I'm not African-American, I have never been called a racial slur. Any adversity that I have felt is because of my religion as well as my gender.

However, I have posted my views that I believe if you take race totally out of this case, nothing changes and the verdict would still be the same. I have always posted that while I believe MF to be a racist, I do not believe that was his motive if he planted the glove.

I do believe race was introduced into this case by the media, months before the trial even started. Do I believe it was done on purpose??? No, but then again, I'm not African-American.

As for Mr. Goldman and being fair game, he is, just like any public figure. However, that does not mean I agree with everything that is said about him. Just like I think Simpson fair game. You live your life in the public eye, it is a risk you take.So you think the family of a murder victim is fair game even though they didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight? How about a parent whose small child has been brutally murdered by a pedophile? Are they fair game? Under your rules they are.

[limakey]

TV,

First, when I use FYI, I do not intend it to be an insult. I have just recently come back to the boards and I do not know what you have read or heard about the case. I know you read VB's book but you have not read others. I am still amazed at how much I missed in the trial and the aftermath and I have learned much from this board.

The reason why the Goldmans should be enraged at the DA's is because, IMO, the DA's put their own careers ahead of the case. The DA's knew all about Fuhrman and if some bizarre reason they didn't, then they didn't want to know. Clark refused to even listen to her own collegues when she was told to back up the MF bus. That there were issues she needed to know about and investigate before she made him her star witness.

In Clark's closing arguements, if the jury had any doubts the state's case, Clark put them to rest. There is no doubt in my mind that the jurors were stunned by her comments about MF, the detectives, LAPD and the CSI unit. She was warned about "vouching" how many times by Judge Ito?

As much as the Goldmans want to slam the defense, IMO, they don't have a case. The defense did not hire MF, the defense did not force MF to lie, the defense did not force Judge Ito to point out Vanatter's reckless disregard for the truth. The defense did not have anything to do with the broken AC unit, or finding of blood evidence days, weeks even months later. The defense did pay the state experts not to examine the socks until months later. The defense did not tell the detectives with over 100 years experience between them to say they never suspected Simpson. The defense did not make Vanatter tell two other witness that in fact Simpson was the prime suspect.

The defense did pay Dr. Golden to throw out stomach contents, not do a rape kit, not to bag hands. The defense never told the LAPD and the CSI Unit to engage in professional pissing contests while Ron and Nicole baked in the sun, getting a sun tan that they weren't going to be able to appreciate.

The defense did not tell Lange to skip his final walk through of the crime scene. The defense did not tell all those police officers not see a bloody fingerprint on the date. The defense did not tell Fung what to do and what evidence to collect or not to collect. The defense did not tell the DA's to call Lange and Vanatter "Dumb and Dumber".

The defense did not tell the nurse how much blood he actually drew.

As for the comment made my Mr. Shapiro. I disagree with his comment but then again, I don't know what it is like to walk into my house of worship and be scorned and ridculed. I have never had to worry about my family's safety because of my job.

You know, when Shapiro made that comment, I often wondered what he was basing his opinon on. Did he ever explain what he actually meant by that comment?

[William Anthony]

So you think the family of a murder victim is fair game even though they didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight? How about a parent whose small child has been brutally murdered by a pedophile? Are they fair game? Under your rules they are.

I do not understand your question. Are you asking that a racist detective lied under oath in the pedophile case and it was shown and the family member made comments similar to those made by Goldman the family member becomes fair game?

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

I have never been called a racial slur or an ethnic slur--that is just me. I agree with you that African Americans are not the only race who have to suffer the indigities of racial slurs. Look what happened when Shapiro made that comment about Chinese food and Dennis Fung. He offend a race of people, he acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness. It is not up to me to determine if his apology should have been accepted or rejected.

Like I said, any adversity that I have faced was due to my religion and my gender.

[William Anthony]

Slow Hand,

I have never been called a racial slur or an ethnic slur--that is just me. I agree with you that African Americans are not the only race who have to suffer the indigities of racial slurs. Look what happened when Shapiro made that comment about Chinese food and Dennis Fung. He offend a race of people, he acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness. It is not up to me to determine if his apology should have been accepted or rejected.

Like I said, any adversity that I have faced was due to my religion and my gender.

You mean like the recent fried chicken remark.

[SlowHandSam]

Slow Hand,

I have never been called a racial slur or an ethnic slur--that is just me. I agree with you that African Americans are not the only race who have to suffer the indigities of racial slurs. Look what happened when Shapiro made that comment about Chinese food and Dennis Fung. He offend a race of people, he acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness. It is not up to me to determine if his apology should have been accepted or rejected.

Like I said, any adversity that I have faced was due to my religion and my gender.

Limakey, I think the point I was trying to make is that it isn't just AAs that feel racial prejudice. White folks are attacked with slurs, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians ... it goes on.

I, unlike others, won't demand or bully for an apology from anyone on this forum or society for these comments. I, unlike others, won't demand or bully for anyone denounce and prejudice remarks because it isn't my place to do so.

I think the point of the post that initiated this was that equality in disagreements etc is necessary when condoning another.

Now back to how it relates to the case ...

I'm not sure I buy that the Goldmans or Browns feel the only reason oj got off is because of race. I think, IMO, that is a large factor considering the climate of LA following the moderately recent riots etc at the time. Unfortunately, it was unavoidable, IMO. There are some, of all races, that felt an atonement (of sorts) was needed.

However, that said - this isn't to agree that the families were led to believe the case was stronger than it was. The evidence was there. It was the inability of the jury to comprehend and the spin the defense put up in the air, like a tornado, that clouded what was really at issue.

I adamantly agree with tvdinner that the bashing of the families is inappropriate if not outright disgusting. These people experienced one of the most horrific losses and public involvement one could imagine.

The families aren't on trial and should not be attacked, IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

When a family member goes public, the police departments and DA's jump for joy in most cases. They use those public comments, press conferences as weapons against the family members. Remember Adam Walsh---I think his father was the main suspect for how many months or years? All because of his public comments about his son's disappearance? His outrage at being asked to take a lie detector test?

Remember Polly Klaas? Same thing with her father. In fact, John Walsh called him and told him submit to the lie detector test, explained why it would speed up the process and take the focus off them.

Remember Susan Smith? How many of us saw her press conference and became convinced of her guilt because she couldn't look anybody in the eye? That her demeaner wasn't what it should have been.

IMO, I believe grieving family members have two choices, they can grieve privately or they can go public. I believe that grieving family members make the only choice that gets them out of bed in the morning. Gives them a reason to carry on. Gives the feeling that perhaps by going public they can help prevent another family from going through it.

No one is doubting Mr. Goldman's grief and pain, nor are they trying to make light of it.

One last example. When Katie Couric's husband, Jay died, she came back on the air after a month. She did a clip expressing her thanks for the support and love she and her children received during this difficult time. She also wore Jay's wedding ring around her neck. A couple of years later, she gave an interview in a magazine and she couldn't believe how so many people were just so mean because they accused her of basically milking her grief by wearing Jay's ring around her neck. If you notice, she stopped wearing his ring around her neck.

[William Anthony]

Limakey, I think the point I was trying to make is that it isn't just AAs that feel racial prejudice. White folks are attacked with slurs, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians ... it goes on.

I, unlike others, won't demand or bully for an apology from anyone on this forum or society for these comments. I, unlike others, won't demand or bully for anyone denounce and prejudice remarks because it isn't my place to do so.

I think the point of the post that initiated this was that equality in disagreements etc is necessary when condoning another.

Now back to how it relates to the case ...

I'm not sure I buy that the Goldmans or Browns feel the only reason oj got off is because of race. I think, IMO, that is a large factor considering the climate of LA following the moderately recent riots etc at the time. Unfortunately, it was unavoidable, IMO. There are some, of all races, that felt an atonement (of sorts) was needed.

However, that said - this isn't to agree that the families were led to believe the case was stronger than it was. The evidence was there. It was the inability of the jury to comprehend and the spin the defense put up in the air, like a tornado, that clouded what was really at issue.

I adamantly agree with tvdinner that the bashing of the families is inappropriate if not outright disgusting. These people experienced one of the most horrific losses and public involvement one could imagine.

The families aren't on trial and should not be attacked, IMO.

I request apologies. I think that to state that an apology is necessary for a racially offensive remark, irrespective of the race of the person making the comment, goes a long way in showing that those type comments will not be tolerated in this community. "If you are not a part of the cure, you are a part of the problem." I think I understand your hesitancy but you have not hesitated in the past to speak out on some things, even racial, when you thought martin and I were wrong. IIRC, you expressed your feelings on slavery and reparations and I am not trying to start that discussion. I am pointing out that, if you are willing to discuss some racial things that you think are inappropriate, the race of the person making the comments should not matter. I have not heard you remark about the fried chicken comment. I do not know if you think the fair game only applies to certain people. I am not condemning you but I am asking for you unbiased participation.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution's first 12 witnesses proved nothing toward the charges, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

I request apologies. I think that to state that an apology is necessary for a racially offensive remark, irrespective of the race of the person making the comment, goes a long way in showing that those type comments will not be tolerated in this community. "If you are not a part of the cure, you are a part of the problem." I think I understand your hesitancy but you have not hesitated in the past to speak out on some things, even racial, when you thought martin and I were wrong. IIRC, you expressed your feelings on slavery and reparations and I am not trying to start that discussion. I am pointing out that, if you are willing to discuss some racial things that you think are inappropriate, the race of the person making the comments should not matter. I have not heard you remark about the fried chicken comment. I do not know if you think the fair game only applies to certain people. I am not condemning you but I am asking for you unbiased participation.

I didn't see anything offensive about the "fried chicken" remark, therefore I didn't feel compelled to reply.

I like fried chicken - spicy variety from Popeyes. Had it this weekend, in fact, with my folks. Fried chicken doesn't offend me.

:confused:

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

TV's comment about not caring what the Simpson family said in their press conference says a lot. I don't remember the exact words but it went something like why is their brother and her brother's lawyers being blamed for exposing a racial divide that has always been a problem in out country? Why was Simpson and his team being blamed for what Mark Fuhrman said on those tapes?

It was just as painful for the Simpson family as it was for the Goldmans and the Browns. I do not believe that they were unaffected by the manner these two people were murdered. I do not believe that just because Nicole is dead, she is no longer considered a member of the Simpson family. I do think it was very painful for both the Browns and the Simpsons to hear comments like OJ only married Nicole because she was white, that Simpson always denied his black skin. I don't think it was horrible that many members of the media basically came out and said that the Brown family pimped Nicole not only in death but in life as well. I think it was very painful to hear that Nicole was nothing but a trophy wife.

Yes, families were trashed and bashed and I disagree with that. However, one's family outrage and pain should not be given more weight then the others. And I believe it is human nature to judge people when they give press conferences or interviews.

TV never answered this question---do you think Fred would have made the same comments about the defense team and racism if it was his son in the defendant chair? Do you think Robert Shapiro would made the comment, "We dealt the Jewish Card from the bottom of the deck?"

As for the evidence, I have yet to hear one reason why it was unreasonable for the jurors to find reasonable doubt on all the evidence. The defense didn't do the spining---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who need an army of spin doctors, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I didn't see anything offensive about the "fried chicken" remark, therefore I didn't feel compelled to reply.

I like fried chicken - spicy variety from Popeyes. Had it this weekend, in fact, with my folks. Fried chicken doesn't offend me.

:confused:

Perhaps, you are just ignorant of the stereotype, regarding fried chicken and Blacks. So, the comment was made that Simpson was looking for fried chicken, IIRC, during the off season. I am personally not fond of chicken but will eat it, if I can't find anything else. Seeing others eat it doesn't offend me but that was not the point. If you are ignorant to the stereotype, then so be it. However, now that you have been made aware that it is racially offensive, I would like your unbiased participation in regard to posts of this type in the future, which would include irrelevant posts on watermelon.

[William Anthony]

Slow Hand,

TV's comment about not caring what the Simpson family said in their press conference says a lot. I don't remember the exact words but it went something like why is their brother and her brother's lawyers being blamed for exposing a racial divide that has always been a problem in out country? Why was Simpson and his team being blamed for what Mark Fuhrman said on those tapes?

It was just as painful for the Simpson family as it was for the Goldmans and the Browns. I do not believe that they were unaffected by the manner these two people were murdered. I do not believe that just because Nicole is dead, she is no longer considered a member of the Simpson family. I do think it was very painful for both the Browns and the Simpsons to hear comments like OJ only married Nicole because she was white, that Simpson always denied his black skin. I don't think it was horrible that many members of the media basically came out and said that the Brown family pimped Nicole not only in death but in life as well. I think it was very painful to hear that Nicole was nothing but a trophy wife.

Yes, families were trashed and bashed and I disagree with that. However, one's family outrage and pain should not be given more weight then the others. And I believe it is human nature to judge people when they give press conferences or interviews.

TV never answered this question---do you think Fred would have made the same comments about the defense team and racism if it was his son in the defendant chair? Do you think Robert Shapiro would made the comment, "We dealt the Jewish Card from the bottom of the deck?"

As for the evidence, I have yet to hear one reason why it was unreasonable for the jurors to find reasonable doubt on all the evidence. The defense didn't do the spining---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who need an army of spin doctors, IMO.

SHS made a very astute point on what was really at issue. What was really at issue was the prosecution's ability to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt that they brought against Simpson. The defense did not spin the evidence but they played the hand the prosecution dealt them. The prosecution was unable to bluff the defense and the jury and most legal professionals.

[weezer]

Doesn't it bother anyone that both the defense and the DA's had to have body guards at all? Isn't that the real issue rather then which agency provided security?

the scheme team didn't need bodyguards! LOL -- like everything else in his life, if was all show for the cockroach.

[weezer]

TV,

IMO, I believe that when it comes to issues such as race, many times, no matter how hard you try, you can't truly ever explain yourself. Its like trying to describe the color red to a blind man or the beauty of music to a deaf person. Sure, a deaf person can "feel" the beat and dance to it, but they can't hear the words to the song.

I do not feel comfortable about making any comments to Martin or William regarding their feelings about such issues. I'm not African-American, I have never been called a racial slur. Any adversity that I have felt is because of my religion as well as my gender.

However, I have posted my views that I believe if you take race totally out of this case, nothing changes and the verdict would still be the same. I have always posted that while I believe MF to be a racist, I do not believe that was his motive if he planted the glove.

I do believe race was introduced into this case by the media, months before the trial even started. Do I believe it was done on purpose??? No, but then again, I'm not African-American.

As for Mr. Goldman and being fair game, he is, just like any public figure. However, that does not mean I agree with everything that is said about him. Just like I think Simpson fair game. You live your life in the public eye, it is a risk you take.

I think if it had been any 12 reasonable people there to decide a murder case, the outcome would have been different. The fact that THIS jury was predisposed to their own agenda derailed justice.

Mr. Goldman isn't a public figure -- good grief.

[limakey]

FBG,

Again, you dimiss the truth in this case. Judge Ito had set up a special fax machine in his office, only for use by the DA's and defense team. They changed the number several times and the death threats still kept coming. I'm sorry, I don't find that a laughing matter. I noticed you didn't put the LOL regarding the death threats made to the DA's.

In Petrocelli's book, he also discussed the death threats he and his team received as well as the death threats that Baker and his team received. Of course, Petrocelli wasn't man enough to leave it at that, he had to say that his death threats were worst or more severe then the Bakers.

[SlowHandSam]

Perhaps, you are just ignorant of the stereotype, regarding fried chicken and Blacks. So, the comment was made that Simpson was looking for fried chicken, IIRC, during the off season. I am personally not fond of chicken but will eat it, if I can't find anything else. Seeing others eat it doesn't offend me but that was not the point. If you are ignorant to the stereotype, then so be it. However, now that you have been made aware that it is racially offensive, I would like your unbiased participation in regard to posts of this type in the future, which would include irrelevant posts on watermelon.

Listen, you want to be an a-hole all day, go for it. But you don't have the right to call me ignorant. You don't know squat about me or my background. Just because I don't equate EVERY single dang thing to a racist comment doesn't make me ignorant.

[weezer]

TV,

First, when I use FYI, I do not intend it to be an insult. I have just recently come back to the boards and I do not know what you have read or heard about the case. I know you read VB's book but you have not read others. I am still amazed at how much I missed in the trial and the aftermath and I have learned much from this board.

The reason why the Goldmans should be enraged at the DA's is because, IMO, the DA's put their own careers ahead of the case. The DA's knew all about Fuhrman and if some bizarre reason they didn't, then they didn't want to know. Clark refused to even listen to her own collegues when she was told to back up the MF bus. That there were issues she needed to know about and investigate before she made him her star witness.

In Clark's closing arguements, if the jury had any doubts the state's case, Clark put them to rest. There is no doubt in my mind that the jurors were stunned by her comments about MF, the detectives, LAPD and the CSI unit. She was warned about "vouching" how many times by Judge Ito?

As much as the Goldmans want to slam the defense, IMO, they don't have a case. The defense did not hire MF, the defense did not force MF to lie, the defense did not force Judge Ito to point out Vanatter's reckless disregard for the truth. The defense did not have anything to do with the broken AC unit, or finding of blood evidence days, weeks even months later. The defense did pay the state experts not to examine the socks until months later. The defense did not tell the detectives with over 100 years experience between them to say they never suspected Simpson. The defense did not make Vanatter tell two other witness that in fact Simpson was the prime suspect.

The defense did pay Dr. Golden to throw out stomach contents, not do a rape kit, not to bag hands. The defense never told the LAPD and the CSI Unit to engage in professional pissing contests while Ron and Nicole baked in the sun, getting a sun tan that they weren't going to be able to appreciate.

The defense did not tell Lange to skip his final walk through of the crime scene. The defense did not tell all those police officers not see a bloody fingerprint on the date. The defense did not tell Fung what to do and what evidence to collect or not to collect. The defense did not tell the DA's to call Lange and Vanatter "Dumb and Dumber".

The defense did not tell the nurse how much blood he actually drew.

As for the comment made my Mr. Shapiro. I disagree with his comment but then again, I don't know what it is like to walk into my house of worship and be scorned and ridculed. I have never had to worry about my family's safety because of my job.

You know, when Shapiro made that comment, I often wondered what he was basing his opinon on. Did he ever explain what he actually meant by that comment?

nothing done or not done by LE or nothing said or not said by Fuhrman change the facts of this case: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

[martin II]

Martin, this bashing of the family of Ron Goldman is sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself. He did NOT think he deserved anything for being white. I'm sick and tired of your racist comments against white people while you constantly whine about the black experience. Blacks aren't the only people that have feelings. You make fun of and denigrate a man who lost his son in the worst way possible. Why don't you stop blaming everything that happens on white people and their supposed racism? I don't care if you report me to the moderators for telling you this, I'll take my punishment but someone needs to put a stop to your disgusting comments about Fred Goldman and his family. You wouldn't think he had racist views against the Nation of Islam if the bodyguards had been white. I'm not surprised you think the Goldmans should have slapped the prosecutors...you seem to think violence is an acceptable way to handle problems. OJ Simpson is a double-murdering piece of crap. GET OVER YOURSELF -- SO THERE. :flamemad:


TV
Actually i did not mean that fred should have actually slapped any DA. His anger was misdirected as a result of being mislead by the prosecution and his failure to evaluatre the trial as he sat listening to the prosecutuions case being disected. some of the racist charges he made against COCHRAN in his rant should have been made against Furhman the person you have supported so much here.

Fred decided to call Cochran a racist in public. Fred decided to attack Cochran for the use of a black security agency, THE NATION OF ISLAM tells me he has racist views.Many whites have attacked the black women
of the jury and made what they call allowable fun of some and even had the gall to call them ignorant , uneducated and BIASED. You think there is no racial component to those claims.

Fred has made the death of his son a mini money making industry for the last 11-12 years while making all kinds of negative comments about the person who he thinks killed Ron. Well guess what, if he gets to do that then others that are offended or dislike his cloaking his money raising activity as just a greiving dad have a right to speak their opinions on what he does.

You have rejected all of Furhmans racist tape words and his racist lapd abuse of citizerns history so i can understand how you are able to become upset at almost every subject when a black person complain about certain issue that they consider to be motivated by racism or important to them. It is what it it.

But tv i am not in the least bit concerned about what you are tired of. I will continue to post about issues of importance to me. imo:cool:

[limakey]

FBG,

Again, you don't know the laws on the issue of public figures. On one of Geraldo's show, a reporter, AJ Benza made a few comments about Mr. Goldman, one that he was sick of seeing his man cry in every public restaraunt he ate in. If that wasn't bad enough, he then relayed the little tidbit that Mr. Goldman had plastic surgery so he would be more appealing to the camera. Now, I don't know if this reporter was telling the truth or not, however, the lawyers on Geraldo's panel, as well as Geraldo himself as much as they were sickened by the reporter's comments---Mr. Goldman was a public figure. He made the choice to be the voice not only of Ron but also his family. He made the choice to sign a TV contract regarding legal issues. Mr. Goldman like it or not choose to go public.

The same can be said of Densie Brown. When she set up the foundation for Nicole, she knew that she was opening a door to her life, both professional and personal that she will never ever be able to close again.

[weezer]

I believe the saying is, "The proof is in the pudding", (shall we say, posting).

did I miss something? where in the testimony does it talk about orenthal having dandruff on the 23rd?

[William Anthony]

Listen, you want to be an a-hole all day, go for it. But you don't have the right to call me ignorant. You don't know squat about me or my background. Just because I don't equate EVERY single dang thing to a racist comment doesn't make me ignorant.

Never called you ignorant, I said perhaps you are ignorant of certain stereotypes. Here is a link that shows what ignorant of means.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant

However, since you have stooped to name calling, :seeya: ;) :cool: :)

[William Anthony]

did I miss something? where in the testimony does it talk about orenthal having dandruff on the 23rd?

Yes, you did miss something. bobaugust claimed as a fact that Ms. Moore testified that Simpson did not have dandruff in his hair on May 23rd. He has claimed to have been mistaken when he claimed that there was no dandruff in the samples that were taken from Simpson. There was no dandruff in the hair or cap. I suppose you have read the testimony. I am asking bobaugust to support his claim. You have illuminated another of bobaugust's false post, there is no testimony by Ms. Moore that Simpson did or did not have dandruff on May 23rd.
Thank you, very kindly.

[SlowHandSam]

Perhaps, you are just ignorant of the stereotype, regarding fried chicken and Blacks. So, the comment was made that Simpson was looking for fried chicken, IIRC, during the off season. I am personally not fond of chicken but will eat it, if I can't find anything else. Seeing others eat it doesn't offend me but that was not the point. If you are ignorant to the stereotype, then so be it. However, now that you have been made aware that it is racially offensive, I would like your unbiased participation in regard to posts of this type in the future, which would include irrelevant posts on watermelon.

William, if I denounced every single thing you found racially offensive - I'd get carpal tunnel. I don't share your viewpoint and will not be bullied into supporting it. I speak up when the time is right for things I find offensive.

Now we not only have a problem with chicken, we can't talk about watermelon?! Good Lord. I grew up, in the South, where watermelon was a big huge treat.

So what other fruits, vegetables and meats are we not allowed to mention? Is there a certain car I have to avoid? Are there some spices I can't mention? Please tell me now so we can avoid all the BS moving forward. This is not me saying I won't use it because, again, not everything has to be taken as a racist comment.

I come from a generation that is, clearly, far more tolerant than yours.

[martin II]

tv

Exactly what is it about The NATION OF ISLAM, a national Black security company that has u.s. government contracts to supply security to many of the nations public housing projects and individuals ,that would cause fred to attack Cochran for their use as security in the oj case.
Did he attack the security firms that protected the DA's people? Why only The Nation OF ISLAM.?

[William Anthony]

William, if I denounced every single thing you found racially offensive - I'd get carpal tunnel. I don't share your viewpoint and will not be bullied into supporting it. I speak up when the time is right for things I find offensive.

Now we not only have a problem with chicken, we can't talk about watermelon?! Good Lord. I grew up, in the South, where watermelon was a big huge treat.

So what other fruits, vegetables and meats are we not allowed to mention? Is there a certain car I have to avoid? Are there some spices I can't mention? Please tell me now so we can avoid all the BS moving forward. This is not me saying I won't use it because, again, not everything has to be taken as a racist comment.

I come from a generation that is, clearly, far more tolerant than yours.

A tolerant generation is accepting of and not dismissive of things that members of other races find offensive. I was raised to respect my elders, so I will give the rest of your post a pass. I am surprised that your generation is not knowledgeable of racial stereotypes, especially since there are others there in the south that are aware of them, I am sure. Perhaps, your older generation should communicate with the older generations.

[weezer]

TV,

When a family member goes public, the police departments and DA's jump for joy in most cases. They use those public comments, press conferences as weapons against the family members. Remember Adam Walsh---I think his father was the main suspect for how many months or years? All because of his public comments about his son's disappearance? His outrage at being asked to take a lie detector test?

Remember Polly Klaas? Same thing with her father. In fact, John Walsh called him and told him submit to the lie detector test, explained why it would speed up the process and take the focus off them.

Remember Susan Smith? How many of us saw her press conference and became convinced of her guilt because she couldn't look anybody in the eye? That her demeaner wasn't what it should have been.

IMO, I believe grieving family members have two choices, they can grieve privately or they can go public. I believe that grieving family members make the only choice that gets them out of bed in the morning. Gives them a reason to carry on. Gives the feeling that perhaps by going public they can help prevent another family from going through it.

No one is doubting Mr. Goldman's grief and pain, nor are they trying to make light of it.

One last example. When Katie Couric's husband, Jay died, she came back on the air after a month. She did a clip expressing her thanks for the support and love she and her children received during this difficult time. She also wore Jay's wedding ring around her neck. A couple of years later, she gave an interview in a magazine and she couldn't believe how so many people were just so mean because they accused her of basically milking her grief by wearing Jay's ring around her neck. If you notice, she stopped wearing his ring around her neck.

limakey -- John Walsh and/or Mark Klaas were never suspects in their children's deaths.

I'm at a loss as to your open-ended understanding of blacks and their hostility because of race but you don't understand greiving families. what's up with that?

[William Anthony]

limakey -- John Walsh and/or Mark Klaas were never suspects in their children's deaths.

I'm at a loss as to your open-ended understanding of blacks and their hostility because of race but you don't understand greiving families. what's up with that?

Who can understand "greiving" families? :) Seriously, why are you questioning someone for their understanding of how another race feels? No, one is minimizing the grief that Goldman feels. The discussion centered around his statements in a press conference and, if I am right, other places. I have said that I would not know how I would act, if I believed my son's killer got off with murder. However, I would pray daily that my grief not turn into misguided hatred.

[weezer]

FBG,

Again, you don't know the laws on the issue of public figures. On one of Geraldo's show, a reporter, AJ Benza made a few comments about Mr. Goldman, one that he was sick of seeing his man cry in every public restaraunt he ate in. If that wasn't bad enough, he then relayed the little tidbit that Mr. Goldman had plastic surgery so he would be more appealing to the camera. Now, I don't know if this reporter was telling the truth or not, however, the lawyers on Geraldo's panel, as well as Geraldo himself as much as they were sickened by the reporter's comments---Mr. Goldman was a public figure. He made the choice to be the voice not only of Ron but also his family. He made the choice to sign a TV contract regarding legal issues. Mr. Goldman like it or not choose to go public.

The same can be said of Densie Brown. When she set up the foundation for Nicole, she knew that she was opening a door to her life, both professional and personal that she will never ever be able to close again.

your posts are ludicrous. you slime the families and victims with half-truths, innuendo and downright lies -- all the while pretending you're just trying to be fair. Here's fair for you: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. There was nothing LE or Fuhrman did or didn't do that changed the DNA and/or blood evidence from someone else to orenthal's.

[martin II]

Many people lose family members everyday in America.Fred is not the only one. Some with the help of family members, ministers and friends are able to make the choice of greiving for a period of time and then seek a way to not have their life totally destroyed by the loss and some understand that carrying a heart of hate around can be harmful to them.

Some do volunteer with various groups to prevent simular events from happening to others.
Fred Goldman, after the criminal trial said all he wanted was justice. Well. imo he got that at the civil trial.

Since that time he turned public and has requested and received time on various tv and radio programs to inform the public of his latest efforts to get what. Money from oj simpson.This has turned into something like a corporate business effort. 2-3 Lawfirms, web site, regular marketing activities and PR comments about what he thinks of oj simpson. Selling his money raising efforts to those that want some vengance for a 12 year old case.

Actually i agree with some that have been critical of him for selling the death of his Son for personal profit for his pockets. Maby it is for a bigger house or some extra cars and a bigger bank account.I don't know. Where does the idea come from that it is morally ok for one to make regular public appeals for money because one believe the public ows one money for a sons death. However i do believe that some with the same amount of rank haterd against simpson will support freds greed until the end.imo

martin II

[William Anthony]

limakey -- John Walsh and/or Mark Klaas were never suspects in their children's deaths.

I'm at a loss as to your open-ended understanding of blacks and their hostility because of race but you don't understand greiving families. what's up with that?

You are wrong to perceive a demand to be given the privileges afforded to other races by the Constitution as being hostile, when it is nothing more than a demand for respect and equality and to have America stand honor the check (paraphrasing MLK) it wrote.

[William Anthony]

I think if it had been any 12 reasonable people there to decide a murder case, the outcome would have been different. The fact that THIS jury was predisposed to their own agenda derailed justice.

Mr. Goldman isn't a public figure -- good grief.

Yes, He is a public figure. Here is the definition for you.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

[William Anthony]

Limakey,

I would like to extend to you the offer to keep on posting, despite the unwarranted attack. You have much to offer to our discussions. I appreciate your compassion, understanding, truthfulness, empathy and intelligence.

[William Anthony]

limakey --

I'm at a loss as to your open-ended understanding of blacks and their hostility because of race but you don't understand greiving families. what's up with that?

I don't think you will be prepared for the answer when the poster decides to respond. I hope it is soon.

[weezer]

FBG,

Again, you dimiss the truth in this case. Judge Ito had set up a special fax machine in his office, only for use by the DA's and defense team. They changed the number several times and the death threats still kept coming. I'm sorry, I don't find that a laughing matter. I noticed you didn't put the LOL regarding the death threats made to the DA's.

In Petrocelli's book, he also discussed the death threats he and his team received as well as the death threats that Baker and his team received. Of course, Petrocelli wasn't man enough to leave it at that, he had to say that his death threats were worst or more severe then the Bakers.

tell me limakey -- if you're this unbiased, reasonable person that understands the criminal jury didn't have credible evidence to convict orenthal, how do you reconcile your hateful remark about Petrocelli?

pssst -- the DA's didn't have bodyguards.

[William Anthony]

When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. bobaugust

Show me the testimony.

[weezer]

Many people lose family members everyday in America.Fred is not the only one. Some with the help of family members, ministers and friends are able to make the choice of greiving for a period of time and then seek a way to not have their life totally destroyed by the loss and some understand that carrying a heart of hate around can be harmful to them.

Some do volunteer with various groups to prevent simular events from happening to others.
Fred Goldman, after the criminal trial said all he wanted was justice. Well. imo he got that at the civil trial.

Since that time he turned public and has requested and received time on various tv and radio programs to inform the public of his latest efforts to get what. Money from oj simpson.This has turned into something like a corporate business effort. 2-3 Lawfirms, web site, regular marketing activities and PR comments about what he thinks of oj simpson. Selling his money raising efforts to those that want some vengance for a 12 year old case.

Actually i agree with some that have been critical of him for selling the death of his Son for personal profit for his pockets. Maby it is for a bigger house or some extra cars and a bigger bank account.I don't know. Where does the idea come from that it is morally ok for one to make regular public appeals for money because one believe the public ows one money for a sons death. However i do believe that some with the same amount of rank haterd against simpson will support freds greed until the end.imo

martin II

If the Goldmans and the Browns want to go on tv everyday and disavow orenthal then so be it. what's it to you? you're thinking bad about the Goldmans or Browns and whether or not they made money off of the deaths? what about that piece of trash orenthal -- he started while he was in jail waiting for his trial and continued right through the writing of his confessional book.

your hate for the Goldmans is misguided. orenthal james simpson was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman. a court of law ordered orenthal james simpson to pay for his actions. The Goldmans have every right to pursue the murderer however, wherever and for as long as they want. you need to get over it.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony's Avatar
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 7,797

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
nope -- there was no testimony AND since Furhman wasn't an issue int he civil trial -- any reference to him is off topic.

Then why did you mention him after another poster and I agreed MF was off topic? Here is your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
you do realize this is the same timeline as Fuhrman's screenplay tapes and Nicole's diary entries -- right?


fbgweezer's Avatar
Criime Library Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,032

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Then why did you mention him after another poster and I agreed MF was off topic? Here is your post.

he's still off topic on this thread AND there was no testimony in either trial to back up your statement.

I took the liberty of putting this on the proper thread. There was testimony, his, after the foundation was laid that those were his words by LHM.

[bobaugust]

Show me the testimony.

Juanita Moore last cut Simpson's hair on May 23. She never testified that Simpson had dandruff at that time. There is no evidence that Simpson's had dandruff on the night of the murders, only evidence that if he did it would not necessarily be on his hairs that were in the knit cap or his hair that was found on Ron's clothing.

You William are the one who has claimed there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. Support your claim.

bobaugust

[martin II]

your posts are ludicrous. you slime the families and victims with half-truths, innuendo and downright lies -- all the while pretending you're just trying to be fair. Here's fair for you: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. There was nothing LE or Fuhrman did or didn't do that changed the DNA and/or blood evidence from someone else to orenthal's.

Weezer
You have posted the same stuff for some time. It only indicates that all of the info contrary to what you think has not been helpful.
If i had the same level of hatred for oj, the defense team and the 'BIASED, IGNORANT UNEDUCATED" jury menbers as you refer to them, there is a small chance i would feel the same but i am thankful that i have been given the ability to evaluate the evidence and testimony without the need to lie or ignore how and why the prosecution brought charges that in front of the world they were not able to prove.imo :cool:

[William Anthony]

Weezer
You have posted the same stuff for some time. It only indicates that all of the info contrary to what you think has not been helpful.
If i had the same level of hatred for oj, the defense team and the 'BIASED, IGNORANT UNEDUCATED" jury menbers as you refer to them, there is a small chance i would feel the same but i am thankful that i have been given the ability to evaluate the evidence and testimony without the need to lie or ignore how and why the prosecution brought charges that in front of the world they were not able to prove.imo :cool:

Yep and we will never get the link to the alleged pigeon-toed shoe prints.;) :cool:

[weezer]

Weezer
You have posted the same stuff for some time. It only indicates that all of the info contrary to what you think has not been helpful.
If i had the same level of hatred for oj, the defense team and the 'BIASED, IGNORANT UNEDUCATED" jury menbers as you refer to them, there is a small chance i would feel the same but i am thankful that i have been given the ability to evaluate the evidence and testimony without the need to lie or ignore how and why the prosecution brought charges that in front of the world they were not able to prove.imo :cool:

good Lord martin -- the majority of the world believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole so who do you think didn't prove their case? LOL I don't hate orenthal -- to me he is a non-entity -- a piece of trash to throw away.

[William Anthony]

Juanita Moore last cut Simpson's hair on May 23. She never testified that Simpson had dandruff at that time. There is no evidence that Simpson's had dandruff on the night of the murders, only evidence that if he did it would not necessarily be on his hairs that were in the knit cap or his hair that was found on Ron's clothing.

You William are the one who has claimed there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. Support your claim.

bobaugust

I have posted my evidence and it is supported by the testimony that he had more dandruff in the off season and that he had dandruff in jail. Unlike you, I said evidence, which allows a reasonable inference to be drawn. You on the other hand claimed as fact that you were correct that Ms. Moore testified Simpson's hair did not have dandruff on May 23rd when she cut it. Since you claim you are correct, show me the testimony.

[William Anthony]

When I said that Moore testified that the last time she cut Simpson's hair was on May 23 and he did not have dandruff I was correct. bobaugust


Show me the testimony.

[martin II]

If the Goldmans and the Browns want to go on tv everyday and disavow orenthal then so be it. what's it to you? you're thinking bad about the Goldmans or Browns and whether or not they made money off of the deaths? what about that piece of trash orenthal -- he started while he was in jail waiting for his trial and continued right through the writing of his confessional book.

your hate for the Goldmans is misguided. orenthal james simpson was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman. a court of law ordered orenthal james simpson to pay for his actions. The Goldmans have every right to pursue the murderer however, wherever and for as long as they want. you need to get over it.

weezer

Fred has turned himself into a public figure all on his own.This allows any person to be critical of his money raising activities as they see need to.

There is no additional court available to fred to pursue oj in. Based on his public request for money and his efforts to get and sell verious oj owned items
i see his activities as a puirsuit of nothing but money for his pockets.He is chassing ojs tee shirts and old footbals for God sake.

Some media and individuals have tried to create a situation where it is ok to to do anything one may desire to do.kick over the coffee table, break the china etc but you can never break OUR rule of being critical of fred.
this is nonsense.He is no different that any other greed driven person. Greed is greed regardless of how it is packaged to the public.imo :cool:

[William Anthony]

Remember this, bobaugust?

Do I occasionally make mistakes? Yes and I admit when I'm wrong.

Remember, that respect thing?

[bobaugust]

I have posted my evidence and it is supported by the testimony that he had more dandruff in the off season and that he had dandruff in jail. Unlike you, I said evidence, which allows a reasonable inference to be drawn. You on the other hand claimed as fact that you were correct that Ms. Moore testified Simpson's hair did not have dandruff on May 23rd when she cut it. Since you claim you are correct, show me the testimony.

I was incorrect when I said that Moore testified Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23. She never said that nor did she testify that he did have dandruff at that time.

Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is not a reasonable inference. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. The dandruff speculation in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

good Lord martin -- the majority of the world believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole so who do you think didn't prove their case? LOL I don't hate orenthal -- to me he is a non-entity -- a piece of trash to throw away.

The world you speak of may be your limited view of the world. It is common knowledge that the la DA did not prover their claims against OJ Simpson.It is my opinion that anyone that does not realieze this fact may be playing mind games with themselves. imo:cool:

[limakey]

FBG,

I have to ignore your posts. Quite frankly your ignorance is just too much for me to handle and maintain the manners that my parents taught me.

Did you read John Walsh's book? Did you? If you did, then you would know that I speak the truth.

Did you see Mark Klaas on The Larry King Live show? Did you hear him tell the viewers how enraged he was because the police were only focusing on him? Did you hear when he said it was John Walsh who called and explained why the focus was on him and why it was important for him to corporate. That as much as it hurt and sickened him to have to anwer the questions, the police were asking questions that had to ask.

[William Anthony]

I was incorrect when I said that Moore testified Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23. She never said that nor did she testify that he did have dandruff at that time.

Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is not a reasonable inference. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. The dandruff speculation in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

I was right that you have to qualify your wrongness. Thanks again for proving me right. You falsely claimed that Ms. Moore testified to something she did not but now add she did not testify he had dandruff, which no one claimed. So far, you have twice posted falsely in your first post back after your hiatus.

The defense provided testimony that he had more dandruff between February and August, which last I checked May and June were in that time period. That my friend is called circumstantial testimonial evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was normal for him to have dandruff during those months. What there is is a lack of evidence to suggest that he did not have dandruff as you falsely claimed. A simple I was wrong would have sufficed from you.

[William Anthony]

Remember this, bobaugust?

"No my tactics have not changed since they are based on the evidence in this case." -bobaugust


There was no evidence that Ms. Moore testified that Simpson's hair had no dandruff when she cut in on May 23rd and there was evidence that Simpson's hair sample taken by the prosecution had dandruff, which the evidence was directly opposite your claim. This is your third false claim in your first post back after your hiatus. Remember that respect thing?

[William Anthony]

FBG,

I have to ignore your posts. Quite frankly your ignorance is just too much for me to handle and maintain the manners that my parents taught me.

Did you read John Walsh's book? Did you? If you did, then you would know that I speak the truth.

Did you see Mark Klaas on The Larry King Live show? Did you hear him tell the viewers how enraged he was because the police were only focusing on him? Did you hear when he said it was John Walsh who called and explained why the focus was on him and why it was important for him to corporate. That as much as it hurt and sickened him to have to anwer the questions, the police were asking questions that had to ask.

Handled in a very polite fashion, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

Handled in a very polite fashion, imho.

right ... calling another poster ignorant is polite.

[William Anthony]

right ... calling another poster ignorant is polite.

Never happened. :read: . Here is a link for the definition of "ignorance".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

Limakey then went on to explain the poster's lack of knowledge.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Least I forget what my parents taught me, I am happy to see that you are among the living, even with your recent multiple mistakes/human errors/false posts/lies and post (pun intended) disrespect.

[William Anthony]

Unread Today, 09:08 PM
martin II's Avatar
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,068

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
You are truly naive if you think they didn't have an affair. I'm sure she had her own reasons for denying it.

tv
you do seem to protect and support furhman even when he makes a sex claim against another woman.I find that strange comming from another woman.

Another astute observation on your part, martin. She called the accusation against Darden and Clark's sexual relationship gossip but defended this one as fact. Wonder what the difference is?

[William Anthony]

he's still off topic on this thread AND there was no testimony in either trial to back up your statement.

The evidence was heard, during the criminal trial, by that court, which you have endlessly reminded me that you are a part of, the court of public opinion.

[tv]

I request apologies. I think that to state that an apology is necessary for a racially offensive remark, irrespective of the race of the person making the comment, goes a long way in showing that those type comments will not be tolerated in this community. "If you are not a part of the cure, you are a part of the problem." I think I understand your hesitancy but you have not hesitated in the past to speak out on some things, even racial, when you thought martin and I were wrong. IIRC, you expressed your feelings on slavery and reparations and I am not trying to start that discussion. I am pointing out that, if you are willing to discuss some racial things that you think are inappropriate, the race of the person making the comments should not matter. I have not heard you remark about the fried chicken comment. I do not know if you think the fair game only applies to certain people. I am not condemning you but I am asking for you unbiased participation.I've yet to see apologize for calling me and insensitive b**** the other day. Oh that's right, I misunderstood your meaning. Right.

[martin II]

your posts are ludicrous. you slime the families and victims with half-truths, innuendo and downright lies -- all the while pretending you're just trying to be fair. Here's fair for you: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. There was nothing LE or Fuhrman did or didn't do that changed the DNA and/or blood evidence from someone else to orenthal's.

You need to cool your roll and calm down. No one is interested in your attack type post.

[tv]

You need to cool your roll and calm down. No one is interested in your attack type post.I'm very interested in her posts. I think she's 100% correct in her assessment of you and OJ Simpson.

[tv]

I do not understand your question. Are you asking that a racist detective lied under oath in the pedophile case and it was shown and the family member made comments similar to those made by Goldman the family member becomes fair game?Twist, twist, twist.

[tv]

Unread Today, 09:08 PM
martin II's Avatar
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,068





Another astute observation on your part, martin. She called the accusation against Darden and Clark's sexual relationship gossip but defended this one as fact. Wonder what the difference is?
The difference is that I'm not claiming their relationship bearing on this case while you seem to think that Darden and Clarke had a relationship that caused them to lose the case.

[William Anthony]

I've yet to see apologize for calling me and insensitive b**** the other day. Oh that's right, I misunderstood your meaning. Right.

Show me where I called you that. Right, you misunderstood.

[William Anthony]

Twist, twist, twist.

No twisting, everyone wants to be Chubby Checker. I was trying to understand your point.

[SlowHandSam]

Show me where I called you that. Right, you misunderstood.

#399 in the Vegas Thread.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290810&page=10

[martin II]

Unread Today, 09:08 PM
martin II's Avatar
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,068





Another astute observation on your part, martin. She called the accusation against Darden and Clark's sexual relationship gossip but defended this one as fact. Wonder what the difference is?

A female poster here called N Singers testimony about what furhman said to her in her apartment a lie.

[William Anthony]

#399 in the Vegas Thread.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290810&page=10

Don't need your link and this is your third false accusation, today, IIRC. Show me where I said "tvdinner you are.... Believe me, if I decided to call anyone poster a name, she would not be near the top of the list.:)

[martin II]

I'm very interested in her posts. I think she's 100% correct in her assessment of you and OJ Simpson.

that is your right.

[William Anthony]

The difference is that I'm not claiming their relationship bearing on this case while you seem to think that Darden and Clarke had a relationship that caused them to lose the case.

I took your post to imply that she had a reason to lie on MF. I think he proved he can do that quite well without any interference.

[SlowHandSam]

Don't need your link and this is your third false accusation, today, IIRC. Show me where I said "tvdinner you are.... Believe me, if I decided to call anyone poster a name, she would not be near the top of the list.:)

I've got news for you - that's the post she's referring to ... that we all saw.

It isn't a false accusation as I posted a link to your words in that thread to which tvdinner refers.

she even called you out on in subsequent posts.

The "ignorant" claims are not false. You said it, now deal with the consequences.

I'm so glad you continue to raise the level of posting in this community. You lead a fine example. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

I was right that you have to qualify your wrongness. Thanks again for proving me right. You falsely claimed that Ms. Moore testified to something she did not but now add she did not testify he had dandruff, which no one claimed. So far, you have twice posted falsely in your first post back after your hiatus.

The defense provided testimony that he had more dandruff between February and August, which last I checked May and June were in that time period. That my friend is called circumstantial testimonial evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was normal for him to have dandruff during those months. What there is is a lack of evidence to suggest that he did not have dandruff as you falsely claimed. A simple I was wrong would have sufficed from you.

There was no direct or circumstantial evidence that supports your inference that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. I'm sorry but what you call a reasonable inference is based only on speculation and is not reasonable at all. Moore testified that when Simpson put oil in his hair he would not get dandruff and if he didn't use oil in the hot summer months and did get dandruff he treated it with over the counter dandruff shampoo. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, 1994 or that he had dandruff on the night of the murders, June 12, 1994. There is only evidence of Simpson having dandruff weeks after the murders when he was jail. Your inferences are not credible and in no way exclude Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I've got news for you - that's the post she's referring to ... that we all saw.

It isn't a false accusation as I posted a link to your words in that thread to which tvdinner refers.

she even called you out on in subsequent posts.

The "ignorant" claims are not false. You said it, now deal with the consequences.

I'm so glad you continue to raise the level of posting in this community. You lead a fine example. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

Unless you are able to show me where I called anyone a name, I respectfully request that you stop making these false accusations. I think you need to read what a poster says and not what you want them to say or want to believe they said. Why did I suddenly think of the poster you welcomed back from his hiatus? We did discuss whether or not I had called her a name in subsequent posts, since I was unsure what she called name calling and she offered some examples and I posed one, which was in regard to whether or not she would consider a poster calling me that. With that said, I think you are more upset about something else and the best thing I can do for you is to give you a good leaving alone. :seeya: ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

There was no direct or circumstantial evidence that supports your inference that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. I'm sorry but what you call a reasonable inference is based only on speculation and is not reasonable at all. Moore testified that when Simpson put oil in his hair he would not get dandruff and if he didn't use oil in the hot summer months and did get dandruff he treated it with over the counter dandruff shampoo. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, 1994 or that he had dandruff on the night of the murders, June 12, 1994. There is only evidence of Simpson having dandruff weeks after the murders when he was jail. Your inferences are not credible and in no way exclude Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

You are the one that said she testified he had no dandruff on May 23rd, which we now know is false. She testified she had cut his hair for 16 years and that he had more dandruff during the off season, which May and June are. He had dandruff after the murders in the samples he gave, which you lied about. The only reasonable inference to be drawn is that he had dandruff in May and June. It was the prosecution's duty to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they failed to do. what is missing is any evidence to support your false claims/mistakes/human error/lies and any evidence to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders.

Please, do not point to the ifs, maybes, shouldas, wouldas, couldas and assumptions of the expert? Why didn't the prosecution look for Head and Shoulders or any other type of dandruff shampoo in the master bathroom, as opposed to irrelevantly and immaterially asking Ms. Moore if Arnelle and the first Ms. Simpson dyed their hair? Why didn't the expert go to jail to see if he would develop dandruff, smile? The prosecution bore (pun intended) the burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

A female poster here called N Singers testimony about what furhman said to her in her apartment a lie.

Wonder why?

[William Anthony]

Your inferences are not credible and in no way exclude Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

Why, another poster realized it was a defense when she believed your post was truthful. She then tried damage control after she realized that you post was false (being polite) and said she relied on the blood evidence. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

There was no direct or circumstantial evidence that supports your inference that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. I'm sorry but what you call a reasonable inference is based only on speculation and is not reasonable at all.

bobaugust

"In the civil context, the import of the "inference upon inference" rule has largely been eroded. See Salter v. Westra, 904 F.2d 1517, 1525 (11th Cir. 1990); Cora Pub, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 619 F.2d 482, 485-86 (5th Cir. 1980); see also N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. McNeely, 52 Ariz. 181, 79 P.2d 948, 955 (Ariz. 1938) (setting forth a construction of the rule that has been adopted in numerous jurisdictions); 1A John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law Section 41 (Tillers rev. 1983) (criticizing the rule in both contexts as "fallacious and impracticable"). In criminal cases, however, its common-sense dictate continues to bear currency. While some courts have rejected a mechanistic interpretation of the rule, n3 we find its underpinnings to be sound, arising as they do from the requirement that the government bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The government may satisfy this burden, in whole or in part, through the use of circumstantial evidence open to interpretation by the jury. Inferences are necessary and indeed proper in a criminal trial, and "a jury has wide latitude to determine factual issues and to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence." United States v. McCarrick, 294 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2002). An inference is reasonable if it "flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning," i.e., with experience serving as the touchstone, a jury's inference is permissible where there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the facts in evidence. n4 Jones, 44 F.3d at 865. The rule that prohibits the stacking of inference upon inference merely indicates that at some point along a rational continuum, inferences may become so attenuated from underlying evidence as to cast doubt on the trier of fact's ultimate conclusion. In other words, "the chance of error or speculation increases in proportion to the width of the gap between underlying fact and ultimate conclusion where the gap is bridged by a succession of inferences, each based upon the preceding one." United States v. Shahane, 517 F.2d 1173, 1178 (8th Cir. 1975).

While preserving the "inference upon inference" rule in this circuit, we see little tension between our understanding of its import and that espoused in the cases noted above. Nor have our previous cases employed a formalistic approach to the operation of the rule. ...

Like many courts that have addressed the issue, we do not foreclose the possibility that a reasonable inference built on yet another reasonable inference may in some cases sustain a conviction. However, we believe the "inference upon inference" rule serves as an appropriate signpost, cautioning reviewing courts to measure the "gap" between fact and conclusion before acquiescing in the jury's leap.

Although the 10th Circuit didn't get absolutely everything right -- the strength of an inference based on a series of inferences is not as dependent on the number of inferences as the 10th Circuit imagines -- there is much to be said for the approach that the 10th Circuit takes. The 10th Circuit's approach tells judges that when evaluating the strength or sufficiency of evidence (at least in criminal cases) they must decompose the foundation of a final inference into a series of inferences upon which such a final inference rests and judges must then assess the strength or force of the entire chain (I would say "complex") of inferences. There is wisdom -- and valuable inferential discipline -- in this approach; the existence of pyramided inferences is not a myth."

That is why I said the string of the prosecution's case. The prosecution presented knots, while the defense presented links that composed a chain that tore asunder the prosecution's string. Be careful to know that of which you speak, so that your tongue does not bind your mouth with a chain to strong to break.

[William Anthony]

"R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me. Have a little respect."

[bobaugust]

You are the one that said she testified he had no dandruff on May 23rd, which we now know is false. She testified she had cut his hair for 16 years and that he had more dandruff during the off season, which May and June are. He had dandruff after the murders in the samples he gave, which you lied about. The only reasonable inference to be drawn is that he had dandruff in May and June. It was the prosecution's duty to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they failed to do. what is missing is any evidence to support your false claims/mistakes/human error/lies and any evidence to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders.

Please, do not point to the ifs, maybes, shouldas, wouldas, couldas and assumptions of the expert? Why didn't the prosecution look for Head and Shoulders or any other type of dandruff shampoo in the master bathroom, as opposed to irrelevantly and immaterially asking Ms. Moore if Arnelle and the first Ms. Simpson dyed their hair? Why didn't the expert go to jail to see if he would develop dandruff, smile? The prosecution bore (pun intended) the burden of proof.

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time with this William. For an inference to be reasonable it should be based on factual evidence. There is no evidence of any kind that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff when she cut his hair on May 23, She testified that Simpson periodically had dandruff in the off season when he didn't use oil on his hair. A problem that she had advised him could be eliminated by the use of over the counter dandruff shampoo. There was no evidence of dandruff found on the knit cap or Ron's clothing where Simpson's hairs were found. The only dandruff found was on the hairs Simpson provided for the prosecution taken weeks after the murders when he was in jail, which according to Deedrick would not be unusual for someone who is incarcerated.

Your claim is pure speculation which in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer. I may be wrong but I don't believe the defense ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. If you believe they claimed that, post it please. Your attempt to insult me after I pointed out why your inference is not reasonable only shows how weak your argument is.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time with this William. For an inference to be reasonable it should be based on factual evidence. There is no evidence of any kind that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff when she cut his hair on May 23, She testified that Simpson periodically had dandruff in the off season when he didn't use oil on his hair. A problem that she had advised him could be eliminated by the use of over the counter dandruff shampoo. There was no evidence of dandruff found on the knit cap or Ron's clothing where Simpson's hairs were found. The only dandruff found was on the hairs Simpson provided for the prosecution taken weeks after the murders when he was in jail, which according to Deedrick would not be unusual for someone who is incarcerated.

Your claim is pure speculation which in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer. I may be wrong but I don't believe the defense ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. If you believe they claimed that, post it please. Your attempt to insult me after I pointed out why your inference is not reasonable only shows how weak your argument is.

bobaugust

First, beginning at the end, I did not attempt to insult you after you pointed anything out to me. This is not intended to insult you but you do not have enough training of knowledge to point out anything to me about the law and argument by your use of the phrase "factual evidence". The only time there is factual evidence is when there is a stipulation or evidence is taken judicial notice of, which in regard to our discussion on the evidence of dandruff, there was none. Second, unless it is a bench trial the jury determines the facts by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence. Let's look at what the quote says about facts and reasonable inferences. "Inferences are necessary and indeed proper in a criminal trial, and "a jury has wide latitude to determine factual issues and to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence." United States v. McCarrick, 294 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2002). " Third, I have explained to you that Ms. Moore's testimony was circumstantial evidence that Simpson would have had dandruff in the months of May and June, and to bolster that fact is her testimony that she had cut his hair for 16 years, giving rise to the reasonable inference that she would have known the times his hair had more dandruff than others. I see that this is going to be an unnecessary and a drawn out process, so I will let you ponder those things while I make my continuation.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time with this William. For an inference to be reasonable it should be based on factual evidence. There is no evidence of any kind that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff when she cut his hair on May 23, She testified that Simpson periodically had dandruff in the off season when he didn't use oil on his hair. A problem that she had advised him could be eliminated by the use of over the counter dandruff shampoo. There was no evidence of dandruff found on the knit cap or Ron's clothing where Simpson's hairs were found. The only dandruff found was on the hairs Simpson provided for the prosecution taken weeks after the murders when he was in jail, which according to Deedrick would not be unusual for someone who is incarcerated.

Your claim is pure speculation which in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer. I may be wrong but I don't believe the defense ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. If you believe they claimed that, post it please. Your attempt to insult me after I pointed out why your inference is not reasonable only shows how weak your argument is.

bobaugust

continuation

Fourth, let's look at inferences upon inferences as it relates to the expert's testimony. "The rule that prohibits the stacking of inference upon inference merely indicates that at some point along a rational continuum, inferences may become so attenuated from underlying evidence as to cast doubt on the trier of fact's ultimate conclusion. In other words, "the chance of error or speculation increases in proportion to the width of the gap between underlying fact and ultimate conclusion where the gap is bridged by a succession of inferences, each based upon the preceding one." United States v. Shahane, 517 F.2d 1173, 1178 (8th Cir. 1975). This is where the expert's maybes, ifs, couldas, wouldas, shouldas come into play because they are too attenuated that they cast doubt on the ultimate conclusion that it was Simpson's hair, as opposed to the testimony of someone with 16 years experience and knowledge of the condition of Simpson's hair. Fifth, Ms. Moore (try to be a tad bit more respectful, she is a lady) said that there were times when Simpson had more dandruff, i.e. the months from February through August, and not that he periodically had dandruff, as Clark's clever question implied. Therefore, the logical inference is that he always had dandruff. At this point I need to look at something, so I will continue momentarily while you digest this.

[William Anthony]

Continuation

Sixth, let's look at the expert's testimony that you posted without me looking up the cross.

"MS. CLARK: And in examining those hair samples of inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more have you noticed anything about their hair condition as a result of the incarceration?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it may change and dandruff is one good example that have.
MS. CLARK: Could you explain, please.
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the hairs--hair characteristics, hairstyles, hair hygiene, a lot of things change, I would assume. I have never been in jail, but I would assume that conditions change to what you are normally accustomed to, and that being that might be one, that your shampoo changes, how you take care of yourself may change.
MS. CLARK: And so dandruff on the hair samples taken from inmates that have been incarcerated for a month or more, that is a common or uncommon thing for you to find?
MR. DEEDRICK: That is not uncommon to see that.

Do you see the attenuation?

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised you're having such a hard time with this William. For an inference to be reasonable it should be based on factual evidence. There is no evidence of any kind that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff when she cut his hair on May 23, She testified that Simpson periodically had dandruff in the off season when he didn't use oil on his hair. A problem that she had advised him could be eliminated by the use of over the counter dandruff shampoo. There was no evidence of dandruff found on the knit cap or Ron's clothing where Simpson's hairs were found. The only dandruff found was on the hairs Simpson provided for the prosecution taken weeks after the murders when he was in jail, which according to Deedrick would not be unusual for someone who is incarcerated.

Your claim is pure speculation which in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer. I may be wrong but I don't believe the defense ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. If you believe they claimed that, post it please. Your attempt to insult me after I pointed out why your inference is not reasonable only shows how weak your argument is.

bobaugust

Lastly, let's consider this :"arising as they do from the requirement that the government bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The government may satisfy this burden, in whole or in part, through the use of circumstantial evidence open to interpretation by the jury. Thus, it behooved the government to produce sufficient evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders and not the defense to prove he did to allow the jury to draw that reasonable inference the government sought them to draw. This is why I did not insult you but suggested that you silence your tongue because and I will not say your ignorance of the law but will say your lack of knowledge thereof. However, you did not heed my suggestion and continued down this perilous path. Neither you nor the government have an argument on this issue. In your defense, I will say that you have a better chance at playing a lawyer than the prosecution did, because they should have been lawyers and knew what they had to provide evidence of in order to allow the jury to draw the inference they desired to be drawn and how to argue what that evidence proved. You are not expected to know this and you have shown me that you do not. They didn't produce the evidence, which you failed to understand, which is why your and their argument failed. It is hard to argue look at what I didn't produce and see what it proves. I don't know why you are having a hard time with that. Let me see if I can simplify it for you. When you have a reference sample with dandruff, it is hard to say that his hair did not have dandruff. It is too hard to prove a negative. Understand, now? Introduction to Law, 101.

[William Anthony]

"MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell how long the K7 similar hairs inside and outside the Bundy cap had been there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Prior to June 12th?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way to tell how the non-K7, that is, unlike hairs and hair fragments of African American origin found inside and outside the Bundy cap, some of which were treated, no way to tell how long they had been there, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And there is no way to tell, Mr. Deedrick, which came first, is there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way to know.

MR. BAILEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you."

A reasonable inference is that they were left there between September and January of some year, if you believe some belong to Simpson. In short, his testimony proved nothing.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

You were right about one thing.

"MS. CLARK: Okay. And sometimes in the summer when you saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And dandruff, can that be caused by a change in hygiene like what you eat and how you take care of yourself?

MS. MOORE: Umm, I'm not sure.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. She indicated she's not a dermatologist. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. She's indicated she's not sure."

However, she did not see him between May 23rd and June 12th. Do you see the problem with Clark's first question?

[bobaugust]

First, beginning at the end, I did not attempt to insult you after you pointed anything out to me. This is not intended to insult you but you do not have enough training of knowledge to point out anything to me about the law and argument by your use of the phrase "factual evidence". The only time there is factual evidence is when there is a stipulation or evidence is taken judicial notice of, which in regard to our discussion on the evidence of dandruff, there was none. Second, unless it is a bench trial the jury determines the facts by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence. Let's look at what the quote says about facts and reasonable inferences. "Inferences are necessary and indeed proper in a criminal trial, and "a jury has wide latitude to determine factual issues and to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence." United States v. McCarrick, 294 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2002). " Third, I have explained to you that Ms. Moore's testimony was circumstantial evidence that Simpson would have had dandruff in the months of May and June, and to bolster that fact is her testimony that she had cut his hair for 16 years, giving rise to the reasonable inference that she would have known the times his hair had more dandruff than others. I see that this is going to be an unnecessary and a drawn out process, so I will let you ponder those things while I make my continuation.

It doesn't matter how may messages you post regarding your unsupported speculation it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. Nor does it change the fact that Juanita Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff on May 23. Dandruff is not an incurable decease. It is a condition that can be easily controlled and prevented that comes and goes. The fact that Simpson's hair samples were taken after he was incarcerated and living under conditions that were not the same as living in his house is a logical and reasonable explanation as to why he had dandruff weeks after the murders. For you to infer or assume that because Simpson had dandruff periodically in his life is somehow proof that he had it on June 12 without any evidence to suuport your claim is illogical, unreasonable speculation and in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Wonder why?


It is strange to see a woman rejecting other womens testimony as lies in a effort to support a person such as Furhman.
I have no idea as to why this has happened.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter how may messages you post regarding your unsupported speculation it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. Nor does it change the fact that Juanita Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff on May 23. Dandruff is not an incurable decease. It is a condition that can be easily controlled and prevented that comes and goes. The fact that Simpson's hair samples were taken after he was incarcerated and living under conditions that were not the same as living in his house is a logical and reasonable explanation as to why he had dandruff weeks after the murders. For you to infer or assume that because Simpson had dandruff periodically in his life is somehow proof that he had it on June 12 without any evidence to suuport your claim is illogical, unreasonable speculation and in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

I see that you have not changed and that it matters not how many times I post certain redundant information you either do not comprehend or fail to accept it. Simpson was not required to prove he was excluded. The prosecution was required to prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson did it. Your posts are false, just as your allocation of the burden of proof. You really should garner some information on how a trial is conducted before you allow that tongue of yours unbridled access to tomfoolery.

[William Anthony]

TV I think you make an extremely good point. Limakey does keep explaining things to a side of the debate but not to the other. Good point. Perhaps Limakey can explain her reasons why she does this. I have pointed out a few differences between what Limakey says is posted and what is actually posted.

You should try offering your own opinion, imho, and add something to the discussion other than parroting what others say and trying to be rude. I guess you understand now about a certain poster's measuring apparatus being askew. However, I have your measure.

[William Anthony]

[/B]

Hi. I think you take a pretty balanced look at both sides but I can't agree with you on this statement. Mr Goldman is a public figure now because of the slaughter of his son. He didn't go looking for anything except justice. Simpson was a 'celebrity' (shudder). He had to keep himself in the spotlight to make money. Mr Goldman wasn't doing any such thing before the murders. You are wrong to make that parallel between them. I would suspect that if Mr Goldman had the choice between being 'fair game and just like any other public figure' he'd really rather just have his son back. Simpson has never given up his desire to be in the public eye.

I must say that there does seem to be a modicum of originality in this post. However, Goldman chose to become a public figure when he made those remarks. He, could have, like all other family members of any other victim, commented or let the lawyers comment. He chose to talk and he chose to make himself public and he has not stopped yet. A trial is a public event and the participants are public figures. Just as Simpson does things to remain in the public, so does Goldman. If it is fair for the goose, it is fair for the gander, although I may not agree with it. I think your concept of justice may be vulgar and askew.

[martin II]

I agree

Fred cannot show his face on LKL, FOX and various print media ranting and yelling, calling oj, Cochran and other respected lawyers names and asking for donations just because he has these feelings.He has the right to do so as long as these media outlets book his appearance to boost their ratings.When he agrees to play this game he opens himself up to those that do not agree with him or his comments or his tactics aimed to get money from the public or support for his victim program.

Obviously there are some that put forth the idea that regardless of his actions
he is suppose to be immune from any comment by those that don't agree. Fred lost this shield of protection after he entered the public arena with his rants in the media. Some of his support may come from OJ haters that may be willing to excuse his behavior as long as his rants are directed at oj simpson and i guess they have a right to that position.

He is open game as long as he continues to make himself a public figure for money.:cool:

imo

[martin II]

Why don't you try responding to your rude and demeaning posts about Mr Goldman?

bell

How about you answer this outstanding question to you.

How did the oj trial effect Australians and the blacks you spoke of?

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I have only posted the truth in regards to Mr. Goldman being a public figure. That is the way that it goes in this country---which is why is next to impossible for a person to sue media organziations and an even smaller possibility of a legal victory.

Some of the best laws we have in our country are a direct result of a parent or another family member be coming not only the face of all victims but also their voice. Perfect examples, Amber's Law and Meagan's Law.

Please note that I did post that I do not think Mr. Goldman's motive is greed. I totally disagree with anyone who finds fault with Mr. Goldman for "making money" off of his son's death. Mr. Goldman's loss of his son does not mean that he no longer has a family to feed, make car payments, pay his morgage, pay his electricity bill. Neither he or his family got free gas so they could go back and forth to the trial everyday. Mrs. Goldman was in the middle of completing a training course, that stopped---but she still had to pay for her education. Kim gave up her job to come home and she needs to eat needs a place to live. I think at the time of the murders, The Goldmans had two minor children they needed to consider. Sympathy simply does not pay for everday bills.

I have also posted that it would not have mattered if the Civil Trial Judgement was a $1,000.00, Mr. Simpson still would not have paid it and Mr. Goldman would not accept it.

However, I fully agree with Martin and William that the Goldmans' anger, at least a good portion of it, should be directed at the LAPD, the CSI Team and the DA's office.

In regards to Martin's statements, I have not read where he believes that Fred Goldman deserved to have his son murdered, by anyone, let alone Mr. Simpson.

In regards to race, I think I already posted on why I think it is really impossible to explain yourself and feelings on this subject. However, if you, Martin and William and Mr. August want to talk about a gender subject that I can relate to, then I will post my feelings on the subject.

Example: Child birth. I believe there ought to be a law that men should not be allowed to cry because they are physical pain. If man does this, I believe any woman who has given birth has the legal right to rip his face off and mail it home to a loved one. Or if that seems a tad harsh, then lets go with passing a bowling ball through through a man's urnial tract demonstration. And during this demonstration, mothers should be placed around the table and yell at him to BREATHE and then ask him if that helps with the pain!

Also note Mr. Bell, I have asked posters to keep the evidence the same, keep every thing exactly the same but only switch Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman. And give an opinon what Mr. Goldman would have wanted the jury to hear regarding MF's tapes as well as MF's past in regards the Jewish race?

And personally, I don't think either Fred Goldman or OJ Simpson give a damn in regards to what some members of the public think about them. They know they have their supporters and they know they have their detractors.

One last thing, the DA's and media truly made the Goldmans' the face of this case. They wanted the tears and the public statements made---however, I do wonder if any of them were advised what goes along with going public. What will eventually happen and how their motives will be questioned.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

One more thing, the Browns were not treated very kindly, either by the DA's or the media. Yes, they made some questionable calls, however, did they deserve to be called "pimps"?

Should they have beaten up in the press for not going to the trial everyday and even after they explained how difficult it was to go the trial and listen to the testimony and then have go home and answer questions from Sydney and Justin?

Should some members of the media say that if the Browns were better parents, their 18 year old daughter never would have gotten involved with a 30 year old married man? Did they deserve the media impression that OJ's wealth made the age difference, race difference and religious difference go away?

Mr. and Mrs. Brown were not treated fairly in the press simply because they did not come to the trial every day. The media declared open season on them. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

When a family member goes public, the police departments and DA's jump for joy in most cases. They use those public comments, press conferences as weapons against the family members. Remember Adam Walsh---I think his father was the main suspect for how many months or years? All because of his public comments about his son's disappearance? His outrage at being asked to take a lie detector test?

Remember Polly Klaas? Same thing with her father. In fact, John Walsh called him and told him submit to the lie detector test, explained why it would speed up the process and take the focus off them.

Remember Susan Smith? How many of us saw her press conference and became convinced of her guilt because she couldn't look anybody in the eye? That her demeaner wasn't what it should have been.

IMO, I believe grieving family members have two choices, they can grieve privately or they can go public. I believe that grieving family members make the only choice that gets them out of bed in the morning. Gives them a reason to carry on. Gives the feeling that perhaps by going public they can help prevent another family from going through it.

No one is doubting Mr. Goldman's grief and pain, nor are they trying to make light of it.
One last example. When Katie Couric's husband, Jay died, she came back on the air after a month. She did a clip expressing her thanks for the support and love she and her children received during this difficult time. She also wore Jay's wedding ring around her neck. A couple of years later, she gave an interview in a magazine and she couldn't believe how so many people were just so mean because they accused her of basically milking her grief by wearing Jay's ring around her neck. If you notice, she stopped wearing his ring around her neck.limakey, you are mistaken. Mr. Goldman has been made fun of, called greedy, and martin has called him Gold-man which is a slur against him for being Jewish. Martin has said he needs to get over it and get on with his life. The truth is that Mr. Goldman is not greedy. He has two jobs and lives a normal middle-class life. He simply wants justice for his son. There are people on this forum that should hang their heads in shame for the way they've talked about Mr. Goldman and thank God they aren't in his shoes. As far as the families having a choice about being public -- in this case they had no choice. They were in the spotlight whether they wished to be or not. That doesn't give anyone the right to publicly ridicule or trash them. It's completely inappropriate but I don't expect it to end. I just want to make it known that there are some posters that find it offensive.

[tv]

Show me where I called you that. Right, you misunderstood.I did not misunderstand. You simply did not have the nerve to admit you were calling me that but it was as close as you could get.

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

I am sorry if you think I was rude to FBG. However, if you read the posts directed at me where she calls me a liar and accuses me of things that I did not do, perhaps you might change your opinon on how I handled the situation.

There is huge difference between asking someone for their source or where they got their information and calling them an outright liar.

FBG accused me of being a liar, when I posted my sources (as well as another poster backing up my post with public documents) and FBG never even acknowledge that her accusations against me were in fact false.

I realize how hard it is to apolgize and I can understand this mistake being made once or twice, however, for it to continue just leads me to believe this person is extremely happy in their state of ignorance and has no real desire to
contribute to the subject.

I am sure FBG is a fine human being and that there might be other topics we would be in perfect agreement---however, the Simpson case is not one of those topics. And I would rather ignore posters such as FBG then get into a war of words and nasty posts.

[limakey]

TV,

Please go back and read my post to Mr. Bell. There is nothing in Martin's posts that can lead any us to say that Martin feels that Mr. Goldman deserved to have is son murdered. That the loss and pain of his son's death is not real. How Martin feels about Fred Goldman's actions and words are just that, his feelings and his opinons. Which believe it or not, we all have.

Please note also in that post, I have posted I do not agree with Martin regarding Mr. Goldman's motive or motives. I also posted that I feel it is wrong to condemn the Goldmans (or any victim's families) for "making money" on a loved one's death. Like I said, public sympathy and support does not pay every day bills.

I also posted other examples of where others in Mr. Goldman's situation have been also judged very, very harshly and IMO, unfairly. It is just the reality of the media beast---IMO.

[tv]

I've got news for you - that's the post she's referring to ... that we all saw.

It isn't a false accusation as I posted a link to your words in that thread to which tvdinner refers.

she even called you out on in subsequent posts.

The "ignorant" claims are not false. You said it, now deal with the consequences.

I'm so glad you continue to raise the level of posting in this community. You lead a fine example. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:That is exactly the post I'm referring to. Any reasonable person can see that it was directed at me. William Anthony lost his cool and decided to post what he really feels. I hope he enjoyed getting it off his chest. :)

[limakey]

TV,

BTW, what to you think about the people who left signs on Mr. Simpson's home saying he was guilty, etc., and his young daughter went outside the gates to write "NOT" over the guilty? Should his daughter been exposed to that?

[SlowHandSam]

Mr. Bell,

I have only posted the truth in regards to Mr. Goldman being a public figure. That is the way that it goes in this country---which is why is next to impossible for a person to sue media organziations and an even smaller possibility of a legal victory.

Some of the best laws we have in our country are a direct result of a parent or another family member be coming not only the face of all victims but also their voice. Perfect examples, Amber's Law and Meagan's Law.

Please note that I did post that I do not think Mr. Goldman's motive is greed. I totally disagree with anyone who finds fault with Mr. Goldman for "making money" off of his son's death. Mr. Goldman's loss of his son does not mean that he no longer has a family to feed, make car payments, pay his morgage, pay his electricity bill. Neither he or his family got free gas so they could go back and forth to the trial everyday. Mrs. Goldman was in the middle of completing a training course, that stopped---but she still had to pay for her education. Kim gave up her job to come home and she needs to eat needs a place to live. I think at the time of the murders, The Goldmans had two minor children they needed to consider. Sympathy simply does not pay for everday bills.

I have also posted that it would not have mattered if the Civil Trial Judgement was a $1,000.00, Mr. Simpson still would not have paid it and Mr. Goldman would not accept it.

However, I fully agree with Martin and William that the Goldmans' anger, at least a good portion of it, should be directed at the LAPD, the CSI Team and the DA's office.

In regards to Martin's statements, I have not read where he believes that Fred Goldman deserved to have his son murdered, by anyone, let alone Mr. Simpson.

In regards to race, I think I already posted on why I think it is really impossible to explain yourself and feelings on this subject. However, if you, Martin and William and Mr. August want to talk about a gender subject that I can relate to, then I will post my feelings on the subject.

Example: Child birth. I believe there ought to be a law that men should not be allowed to cry because they are physical pain. If man does this, I believe any woman who has given birth has the legal right to rip his face off and mail it home to a loved one. Or if that seems a tad harsh, then lets go with passing a bowling ball through through a man's urnial tract demonstration. And during this demonstration, mothers should be placed around the table and yell at him to BREATHE and then ask him if that helps with the pain!

Also note Mr. Bell, I have asked posters to keep the evidence the same, keep every thing exactly the same but only switch Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman. And give an opinon what Mr. Goldman would have wanted the jury to hear regarding MF's tapes as well as MF's past in regards the Jewish race?

And personally, I don't think either Fred Goldman or OJ Simpson give a damn in regards to what some members of the public think about them. They know they have their supporters and they know they have their detractors.

One last thing, the DA's and media truly made the Goldmans' the face of this case. They wanted the tears and the public statements made---however, I do wonder if any of them were advised what goes along with going public. What will eventually happen and how their motives will be questioned.

Limakey, we actually agree on a couple of items! :)

I completely agree that Mr. Goldman (and family) had to do what was necessary to provide for their basic living and extended living needs. I find no fault with him for trying to earn monies that will support his family. I think it's offensive that some claim he's making money "off the death of ..." his son. I don't view it that way. I do, however, disagree that he's fair game like other "public figures". He was forced into a public light and did what he felt he needed to do to get justice for his son and family. I believe he continues to speak publicly about the murders because he feels Ron didn't receive justice.

I also, marginally, agree with you that *some* of the Goldman's and Brown's anger should be directed at LE. While I believe the evidence was there and was damning against oj, I also believe that the DA's office (specifically) should have attacked the spin the defense took on far more aggressively. I believe had they been far more aggressive with their response to all the spinning, we could have had a different outcome ... probably not considering the jury - but one can hope. The fact that they delivered a verdict in 4 hours after 9 months says it all.

It's like how you said about the Browns. They didn't come everyday and they were attacked and vilified by the media and oj supporters. The Goldmans did go and they were attacked and vilified bvy the media and oj supporters. It was a no-win scenario for both families in how they would be portrayed to the world.

I don't fault Mr Goldman for continuing to speak out on the murders. If I were in his shoes, I suspect I'd do the same ... right up to my death bed.

[tv]

Why, another poster realized it was a defense when she believed your post was truthful. She then tried damage control after she realized that you post was false (being polite) and said she relied on the blood evidence. ;) :cool:William Anthony, you don't have to speak for me. I wasn't attempting damage control. bobaugust made a mistake -- big deal -- the world didn't stop spinning. I've learned a lot from bobaugust's posts and admire his patience with you. I can certainly overlook an occasional mistake when he's contributed so much to this discussion. When you become a perfect human being then you can start throwing stones. Until then, I think you've beat this dead horse long enough. bobaugust admitted his mistake so can we move on?

[tv]

TV,

BTW, what to you think about the people who left signs on Mr. Simpson's home saying he was guilty, etc., and his young daughter went outside the gates to write "NOT" over the guilty? Should his daughter been exposed to that?Of course not.

[SlowHandSam]

TV,

BTW, what to you think about the people who left signs on Mr. Simpson's home saying he was guilty, etc., and his young daughter went outside the gates to write "NOT" over the guilty? Should his daughter been exposed to that?

It's unfortunate that his children were exposed to it all. I genuinely mean that. No child should have to grow up coping with a murdered Mom, an accused Dad and then the media infiltration into their lives.

However, for me, it goes back to oj only thinking about himself and not considering what impact his actions have on others. The abusive relationship with his wife ... the naked picture of a gf in his home ... the stalking of Nicole ... the damage to her home from his physical outbursts ... and then ultimately the murder of their mother. All of the above the children had to witness ... not just the signs in the yard. I would think that all the other would effect them more than signs in their yard, but that's just me.

Had he had anyone else in mind other than himself, his children wouldn't have had to go thru it.

IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Please go back and read my post to Mr. Bell. There is nothing in Martin's posts that can lead any us to say that Martin feels that Mr. Goldman deserved to have is son murdered. That the loss and pain of his son's death is not real. How Martin feels about Fred Goldman's actions and words are just that, his feelings and his opinons. Which believe it or not, we all have.

Please note also in that post, I have posted I do not agree with Martin regarding Mr. Goldman's motive or motives. I also posted that I feel it is wrong to condemn the Goldmans (or any victim's families) for "making money" on a loved one's death. Like I said, public sympathy and support does not pay every day bills.

I also posted other examples of where others in Mr. Goldman's situation have been also judged very, very harshly and IMO, unfairly. It is just the reality of the media beast---IMO.limakey, Martin has posted outrageous things about Mr. Goldman since I've been on this forum. I'm not only talking about his recent post. This is something I've been increasingly angry about as time goes on and decided to speak out. If you want to believe that Martin has an ounce of sympathy for the Goldman family then so be it. My opinion is different than yours.

[tv]

bell

How about you answer this outstanding question to you.

How did the oj trial effect Australians and the blacks you spoke of?

For the love of God let this go. YOU are the one that brought up the Australian blacks in regard to the Simpson trial. If you want to know so much than research it yourself. No one else cares.

[tv]

It is strange to see a woman rejecting other womens testimony as lies in a effort to support a person such as Furhman.
I have no idea as to why this has happened.
Martin, I don't necessarily believe everything another woman says. Why would I do that? I think they had a sexual relationship and she didn't want to admit it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter because it had no bearing on the case. I've told you before I support Mark Fuhrman's work as a detective in this case. If you want to keep twisting what I have said in the past about Mark Fuhrman then I'll continue to correct you. Please leave my gender out of this.

[martin II]

limakey, you are mistaken. Mr. Goldman has been made fun of, called greedy, and martin has called him Gold-man which is a slur against him for being Jewish. Martin has said he needs to get over it and get on with his life. The truth is that Mr. Goldman is not greedy. He has two jobs and lives a normal middle-class life. He simply wants justice for his son. There are people on this forum that should hang their heads in shame for the way they've talked about Mr. Goldman and thank God they aren't in his shoes. As far as the families having a choice about being public -- in this case they had no choice. They were in the spotlight whether they wished to be or not. That doesn't give anyone the right to publicly ridicule or trash them. It's completely inappropriate but I don't expect it to end. I just want to make it known that there are some posters that find it offensive.

tv

I don't even believe your post. You have down played the importance of almost every concern william and i have posted here about steriotypes of blacks from calling us 'BOY' To calling the discusison on "Reperations" nonsense that you would not give one penny to (as if someone had asked you for money) and now you claim i made a post using Gold-man as anti jewish. If i did call fred GOLD-MAN it was in referance to his money grab activities.

No one has demanded that fred go and stay public. No one forced him to make that original racist statements about Cochran and THE NATION OF ISLAM. As far as i know lkl,fox or other media outlets DID NOT put a gun to his back and forced him to make his regular media PUIBLIC appearances. Fred had a choice as everyone else has.Make himself a public figure or stay private.

You may feel it is inappropriate for others to speak their opinions but appropriate for fred and yourself to speak yours. It does not work that way.
Free speech is for everyone.imo:cool:

MARTIN ii

[tv]

Slow Hand,

TV's comment about not caring what the Simpson family said in their press conference says a lot. I don't remember the exact words but it went something like why is their brother and her brother's lawyers being blamed for exposing a racial divide that has always been a problem in out country? Why was Simpson and his team being blamed for what Mark Fuhrman said on those tapes?

It was just as painful for the Simpson family as it was for the Goldmans and the Browns. I do not believe that they were unaffected by the manner these two people were murdered. I do not believe that just because Nicole is dead, she is no longer considered a member of the Simpson family. I do think it was very painful for both the Browns and the Simpsons to hear comments like OJ only married Nicole because she was white, that Simpson always denied his black skin. I don't think it was horrible that many members of the media basically came out and said that the Brown family pimped Nicole not only in death but in life as well. I think it was very painful to hear that Nicole was nothing but a trophy wife.

Yes, families were trashed and bashed and I disagree with that. However, one's family outrage and pain should not be given more weight then the others. And I believe it is human nature to judge people when they give press conferences or interviews.

TV never answered this question---do you think Fred would have made the same comments about the defense team and racism if it was his son in the defendant chair? Do you think Robert Shapiro would made the comment, "We dealt the Jewish Card from the bottom of the deck?"

As for the evidence, I have yet to hear one reason why it was unreasonable for the jurors to find reasonable doubt on all the evidence. The defense didn't do the spining---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who need an army of spin doctors, IMO.limakey, I see what Joseph Bell is talking about now about you stating things that were not really posted. I didn't say I don't care what the Simpson family said. I said I hadn't mentioned it and didn't want to discuss it. Your post makes it look like I dismiss their comments and feelings out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. They're victims of OJ Simpson also --not murder victims but victims all the same.

[martin II]

Martin, I don't necessarily believe everything another woman says. Why would I do that? I think they had a sexual relationship and she didn't want to admit it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter because it had no bearing on the case. I've told you before I support Mark Fuhrman's work as a detective in this case. If you want to keep twisting what I have said in the past about Mark Fuhrman then I'll continue to correct you. Please leave my gender out of this.

Both of these women testified in court so their testimony did have a bearing on the case unless you believe the jury did not hear their testimony.N S kicked furhman from her apartment for his racist comments but you think she had sex with him before doing so. Furhman had a history of abuse of mixed couples and minorities as he stated when he was in that recuriting station office and you call that good work as a detective. As your good detective
sworn to tell the truth he flat out lied on the stand in a court of law and you support him and offer excuses as to why he used that n word.
SOMETHING WRONG. IMO

[limakey]

TV,

Mr. Goldman had a choice to make, he could either suffer in private and become more enraged everday, perhaps turn to drink or drugs to numb his pain or other behavior that would only in the end, ruin his life and his family or he could come out like a lion and keep roaring until the end of his days.

Mr. Goldman made the choice to roar and I have no problem with that. However, as I posted before, the nature of the media beast is a nasty one. More unpredicatable then the weather. Remember when the mother who started MADD was arrested for DWI? Look what happened to her in the eyes of the media and the public forums regarding her arrest. She got no slack and was vilified to the point where I think I would have moved out of the country.

Mr. Goldman has made comments that are very offensive to people, do you really think he cares who's feelings he hurts? He has made comments that he never would have made had his son been in the defendant's chair.

I believe the DA's did the best spin job possible, perhaps in the history of the world---think about, we have grown adults fighting over dandruff over 10 years later! As annoying as this statement is, "Everybody Knows He is Guilty!"
appears to truly be believed by many G's.


I do believe the Goldmans were lured out of their privacy and were encouraged to put forth a public face, however, were they warned how quickly things can change? How their very own words and actions can be turned against them? Remember the comments surrounding Simpson's children at their mother's grave? Yet, Kim Goldman never got the same comments when she was photographed sitting at her brother's grave site.

Like I said, the realilty of the media beast! IMO.

[martin II]

For the love of God let this go. YOU are the one that brought up the Australian blacks in regard to the Simpson trial. If you want to know so much than research it yourself. No one else cares.


TV
WRONG

It was bell that first commented about black being in Australia.Specifically he
spoke of Somalia 'BLACKS that run down the streets cutting people with hatchets' That was his description of a country of 8,000,000 black people.

It may be your choice not to care because of the nature of the subject and it is mine to care.imo
martin II

[tv]

tv

I don't even believe your post. You have down played the importance of almost every concern william and i have posted here about steriotypes of blacks from calling us 'BOY' To calling the discusison on "Reperations" nonsense that you would not give one penny to (as if someone had asked you for money) and now you claim i made a post using Gold-man as anti jewish. If i did call fred GOLD-MAN it was in referance to his money grab activities.

No one has demanded that fred go and stay public. No one forced him to make that original racist statements about Cochran and THE NATION OF ISLAM. As far as i know lkl,fox or other media outlets DID NOT put a gun to his back and forced him to make his regular media PUIBLIC appearances. Fred had a choice as everyone else has.Make himself a public figure or stay private.

You may feel it is inappropriate for others to speak their opinions but appropriate for fred and yourself to speak yours. It does not work that way.
Free speech is for everyone.imo:cool:

MARTIN iiYou insist that using the word boy is a racial slur but want to say it's okay to use Gold-man to describe a Jew? I'm to believe that you weren't being anti-Jewish with the Gold-man remark? It's that old double-standard again. I don't object to your criticism of Fred Goldman. What I object to is the vile way that you express it.

[tv]

TV
WRONG

It was bell that first commented about black being in Australia.Specifically he
spoke of Somalia 'BLACKS that run down the streets cutting people with hatchets' That was his description of a country of 8,000,000 black people.

It may be your choice not to care because of the nature of the subject and it is mine to care.imo
martin IIMartin, William Anthony even pointed out to you that you brought up the black poplulation in Australia first. Let it go.

[limakey]

TV,

I re-read my post and I honestly forgot to insert the words, did not care "to discuss it". I'm sure you have noticed by now that when I make a spelling error or another error in my posts, I seem to have a pattern. My posts make every English teacher cringe!

However, it does seem like you have no interest in hearing the other side. IMO, Mr. Goldman's statements about the tapes and JC were totally over the line. It came across as if America has been in perfect racial harmony and we never had a racial problem in this country until the death of his son and Nicole and it is all JC's and Simpson's fault. Simpson's family response was barely covered by the press and it certainly wasn't discussed on the boards.

In regards to Mr. Goldman's statements about the Nation of Islam being body guards for JC, IMO, totally wiped out the very real question, is why would any of the lawyers (including the DAs) need body guards? Why were death threats coming over the court house fax machine.

I remember the media talking heads talking about the Nation of Islams being used as body guards. And one reporter had a smirk on his face commenting that he knew for a fact that JC had to use the Nation of Islam body guards because no other agency would agree to protect him. Does that not bother anyone?

And if that is true, that no other agency but the Nation of Islam would agree to be body guards for JC, what does that tell you about the true state of race relations in our country?

[tv]

TV,

I re-read my post and I honestly forgot to insert the words, did not care "to discuss it". I'm sure you have noticed by now that when I make a spelling error or another error in my posts, I seem to have a pattern. My posts make every English teacher cringe!

However, it does seem like you have no interest in hearing the other side. IMO, Mr. Goldman's statements about the tapes and JC were totally over the line. It came across as if America has been in perfect racial harmony and we never had a racial problem in this country until the death of his son and Nicole and it is all JC's and Simpson's fault. Simpson's family response was barely covered by the press and it certainly wasn't discussed on the boards.

In regards to Mr. Goldman's statements about the Nation of Islam being body guards for JC, IMO, totally wiped out the very real question, is why would any of the lawyers (including the DAs) need body guards? Why were death threats coming over the court house fax machine.

I remember the media talking heads talking about the Nation of Islams being used as body guards. And one reporter had a smirk on his face commenting that he knew for a fact that JC had to use the Nation of Islam body guards because no other agency would agree to protect him. Does that not bother anyone?

And if that is true, that no other agency but the Nation of Islam would agree to be body guards for JC, what does that tell you about the true state of race relations in our country?I don't mind talking about race relations but it always ends up being one sided. Every race has to bear their share of the responsibility for the racial divide in this country. For instance, you see how shocked martin was that I would think he was referring to Mr. Goldman's heritage when he said Gold-man yet martin wants to attribute every innocent remark made to be a racial slur against blacks. You can't have it both ways and frankly I'm weary of the racial discussion because it goes nowhere.

[William Anthony]

I did not misunderstand. You simply did not have the nerve to admit you were calling me that but it was as close as you could get.

I suffer from the same affliction that you do, imho, too much nerve, meaning, if I called you that, I would have no hesitancy about admitting to it. :)

[weezer]

TV
WRONG

It was bell that first commented about black being in Australia.Specifically he
spoke of Somalia 'BLACKS that run down the streets cutting people with hatchets' That was his description of a country of 8,000,000 black people.

It may be your choice not to care because of the nature of the subject and it is mine to care.imo
martin II

then how about starting a thread for that subject?

[weezer]

I don't mind talking about race relations but it always ends up being one sided. Every race has to bear their share of the responsibility for the racial divide in this country. For instance, you see how shocked martin was that I would think he was referring to Mr. Goldman's heritage when he said Gold-man yet martin wants to attribute every innocent remark made to be a racial slur against blacks. You can't have it both ways and frankly I'm weary of the racial discussion because it goes nowhere.

:beer: raising my glass to an excellent post!

[William Anthony]

That is exactly the post I'm referring to. Any reasonable person can see that it was directed at me. William Anthony lost his cool and decided to post what he really feels. I hope he enjoyed getting it off his chest. :)

The question was addressed to you, because you posted what you considered name calling and I responded. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing on this board, with the exception of saying a poster had no respect for me, that comes remotely close to causing me to loose my cool. ;) :cool:

[limakey]

TV,

Now you understand why I made the post that trying to explain how you truly feel about certain issues, is just as impossible a describing the color of red to a blind man.

I do believe genuine efforts have been made by both sides to express their feelings about this subject and for some of us, perhaps were can feel the beat but not hear the words. And lets face it, there are some people who like to push other poster's buttons on certain issues and race happens to be the favorite button.

My feelings regarding race totally have changed since the trial. During the Fuhrman tapes was the first time I was ever ashamed of my race and then I saw the lawyers in the courtroom. The white lawyers clearly looked like they wanted to dig hole and keep going until they reached China. The black lawyers, especially Chris Darden did his best to shield Clark's face and reactions from the camera. It appeared that not one black lawyer in that courtroom were gloating or saying in a boastful manner, "I told you so!". I truly believe that JC and Darden knew for many white people these tapes were going to be extremely painful to hear and deal with.

It truly bothered that the media never focused on what good have come from the Fuhrman tapes. Instead, they protected Fuhrman from his own words, made excuses for him and outright denied that he meant them, that it was pillow talk or it was for a screen play. I quickly went back to shame mode!

I truly believe MF is a hardcore racist. I have read his book and I still feel the same way. However, I do not believe that his racial views played any part in the planting of glove. IMO, as deeply as MF hates, he can love and he loved and wanted the recognition as a detective that he felt has deserved and this was the case that was going to make that happen. IMO.

I do agree with you that MF was very skilled at his job, which is why I believe he went over to Rockingham long before the time he and others testified to. I also believe that it was very likely him or Roberts who were calling inside the Simpson home in the middle of the night---per Kato's book. He kept hearing the phone ring inside the main house.

I have no doubt that MF knew very early on where Simpson was and when he left. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, you don't have to speak for me. I wasn't attempting damage control. bobaugust made a mistake -- big deal -- the world didn't stop spinning. I've learned a lot from bobaugust's posts and admire his patience with you. I can certainly overlook an occasional mistake when he's contributed so much to this discussion. When you become a perfect human being then you can start throwing stones. Until then, I think you've beat this dead horse long enough. bobaugust admitted his mistake so can we move on?

I was not speaking for you. I was speaking about you and your unquestioned acceptance of what bobaugust says is true. Contrary to your post, bobaugust has made, shall we say, several mistakes, the largest of those is posting he had no respect for me. He did not unequivocally admit his mistakes but I, on the other hand, readily state I stand corrected. I agree that he has contributed much rudeness, impoliteness, disrespect and false information to the discussions. Your loyalty to him and MF is admirable, although, imho, sorely misplaced. With all due respect, I will post on anything I desire for as long as I desire. Respectfully submitted.

[tv]

I was not speaking for you. I was speaking about you and your unquestioned acceptance of what bobaugust says is true. Contrary to your post, bobaugust has made, shall we say, several mistakes, the largest of those is posting he had no respect for me. He did not unequivocally admit his mistakes but I, on the other hand, readily state I stand corrected. I agree that he has contributed much rudeness, impoliteness, disrespect and false information to the discussions. Your loyalty to him and MF is admirable, although, imho, sorely misplaced. With all due respect, I will post on anything I desire for as long as I desire. Respectfully submitted.Stop dragging Mark Fuhrman into every discussion. It's unnecessary and tiresome.

[William Anthony]

I don't mind talking about race relations but it always ends up being one sided. Every race has to bear their share of the responsibility for the racial divide in this country. For instance, you see how shocked martin was that I would think he was referring to Mr. Goldman's heritage when he said Gold-man yet martin wants to attribute every innocent remark made to be a racial slur against blacks. You can't have it both ways and frankly I'm weary of the racial discussion because it goes nowhere.

I am amazed at how quickly you tire but do not tire of posting the juror's comment that "We take care of our own" or pointing to the black power salute. Tell me what responsibility do you thinks Blacks have to the racial divide in America and how they can heal it, without you saying for get about it and move on? I did not consider the use of the word boy to be a racial slur against all Blacks; it was addressed to martin and me.

[SlowHandSam]

I was not speaking for you. I was speaking about you and your unquestioned acceptance of what bobaugust says is true. Contrary to your post, bobaugust has made, shall we say, several mistakes, the largest of those is posting he had no respect for me. He did not unequivocally admit his mistakes but I, on the other hand, readily state I stand corrected. I agree that he has contributed much rudeness, impoliteness, disrespect and false information to the discussions. Your loyalty to him and MF is admirable, although, imho, sorely misplaced. With all due respect, I will post on anything I desire for as long as I desire. Respectfully submitted.

nice spin but that isn't even nearly what was said ... you should stop twisting and misquoting other poster's comments to fit your agenda of attack against another poster.

[William Anthony]

Stop dragging Mark Fuhrman into every discussion. It's unnecessary and tiresome.

One could say your defense of certain people is unnecessary and tiresome.

[William Anthony]

nice spin but that isn't even nearly what was said ... you should stop twisting and misquoting other poster's comments to fit your agenda of attack against another poster.

I am not attacking but stating the truth, imho. The poster said he contributed much and I simply stated my opinion of what that much is, as evidenced by his three false statements in his first post after his return from his hiatus. With that said, since I am aware of your agenda, imho. I will give you another good leaving alone. :seeya: ;) :cool: :)

[martin II]

then how about starting a thread for that subject?

no need to this is fine.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I do agree with you that MF was very skilled at his job, which is why I believe he went over to Rockingham long before the time he and others testified to. I also believe that it was very likely him or Roberts who were calling inside the Simpson home in the middle of the night---per Kato's book. He kept hearing the phone ring inside the main house.

I have no doubt that MF knew very early on where Simpson was and when he left. Again, IMO.

uh-oh :eek:

[martin II]

One could say your defense of certain people is unnecessary and tiresome.

Especially the defense of THE fURHMAN

[tv]

TV,

Now you understand why I made the post that trying to explain how you truly feel about certain issues, is just as impossible a describing the color of red to a blind man.

I do believe genuine efforts have been made by both sides to express their feelings about this subject and for some of us, perhaps were can feel the beat but not hear the words. And lets face it, there are some people who like to push other poster's buttons on certain issues and race happens to be the favorite button.

My feelings regarding race totally have changed since the trial. During the Fuhrman tapes was the first time I was ever ashamed of my race and then I saw the lawyers in the courtroom. The white lawyers clearly looked like they wanted to dig hole and keep going until they reached China. The black lawyers, especially Chris Darden did his best to shield Clark's face and reactions from the camera. It appeared that not one black lawyer in that courtroom were gloating or saying in a boastful manner, "I told you so!". I truly believe that JC and Darden knew for many white people these tapes were going to be extremely painful to hear and deal with.

It truly bothered that the media never focused on what good have come from the Fuhrman tapes. Instead, they protected Fuhrman from his own words, made excuses for him and outright denied that he meant them, that it was pillow talk or it was for a screen play. I quickly went back to shame mode!

I truly believe MF is a hardcore racist. I have read his book and I still feel the same way. However, I do not believe that his racial views played any part in the planting of glove. IMO, as deeply as MF hates, he can love and he loved and wanted the recognition as a detective that he felt has deserved and this was the case that was going to make that happen. IMO.

I do agree with you that MF was very skilled at his job, which is why I believe he went over to Rockingham long before the time he and others testified to. I also believe that it was very likely him or Roberts who were calling inside the Simpson home in the middle of the night---per Kato's book. He kept hearing the phone ring inside the main house.

I have no doubt that MF knew very early on where Simpson was and when he left. Again, IMO.

If you want to believe that Mark Fuhrman and Brad Roberts had any reason to phone Simpson's home I'd like to see the proof. The only connection that they have to this case is being called to the Bundy location early on in the investigation. Kato heard the phone ringing so it had to be Mark Fuhrman. Why?

I'm sorry you felt ashamed of your race. Do you think blacks feel ashamed of their race when Farrakhan, the NATION OF ISLAM minister, calls the white man the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devil? You know, the upstanding organization that guarded Johnnie Cochran?

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

I agree with your post about no child should have go through what Sydney and Justin have gone through. I also agree with you that no child should ever have to or listen to their father abuse their mother. However, I feel just as strongly that no child should see their mother or listen to their mother abuse their father.

I agree with you that no child should ever have to carry the shame of their parent cheating on their mother or visa versa. My son made a comment, he truly feels when a father cheats on a mother he is even a lower lowlife because he is cheating on his kids as well. I wish more parents would take this into consideration before the decide to have dish on the side.

I do believe OJ was selfish however, is he that much different then many other wealthy or famous people? Is OJ Simpson the only man of wealth who has used his wealth to his advantage when dealing with family matters? I am sure that wealthy women are just as capable of doing this but IMO, this still is very much a man's world.

However, Sydney and Justin have seen both sides of their parents. While we have made comments regarding their treatment of one another, perhaps only they know how it really was.

I know Mr. August is going to go crazy but I firmely believe Sydney "knows" her father is innocent. I also believe that both Sydeny and Justin were asked a few times, in many different ways, if they happened to see the blood drops on the walk way. IMO, if both of them denied seeing them, they would have been in court and testifying to this. Again, IMO.

[SlowHandSam]

I am amazed at how quickly you tire but do not tire of posting the juror's comment that "We take care of our own" or pointing to the black power salute. Tell me what responsibility do you thinks Blacks have to the racial divide in America and how they can heal it, without you saying for get about it and move on? I did not consider the use of the word boy to be a racial slur against all Blacks; it was addressed to martin and me.

you chose to make it a racial slur. would it have been different if it would have been stated " you guys ..." ? for us, here in the South, we interchange guys and boys without thought and it isn't done with a racial attack in mind.

I am offended daily by your and Martin's comments about being ignorant and the personal attacks on a group of folks. tvdinner being called an insensitive b**** offended me. the personal attacks on bobaugust offend me. the attacks on fbgweezer, socal .... y'all's constant deliberate misspelling of joseph bell's name offends me ... I could go on but it adds no real value to the thread ... just like bringing up old posts that you CHOOSE to make racist...


Where's my apology?

[William Anthony]

TV,


My feelings regarding race totally have changed since the trial. During the Fuhrman tapes was the first time I was ever ashamed of my race and then I saw the lawyers in the courtroom. The white lawyers clearly looked like they wanted to dig hole and keep going until they reached China. The black lawyers, especially Chris Darden did his best to shield Clark's face and reactions from the camera. It appeared that not one black lawyer in that courtroom were gloating or saying in a boastful manner, "I told you so!". I truly believe that JC and Darden knew for many white people these tapes were going to be extremely painful to hear and deal with.

It truly bothered that the media never focused on what good have come from the Fuhrman tapes. Instead, they protected Fuhrman from his own words, made excuses for him and outright denied that he meant them, that it was pillow talk or it was for a screen play. I quickly went back to shame mode!

I truly believe MF is a hardcore racist. I have read his book and I still feel the same way. However, I do not believe that his racial views played any part in the planting of glove. IMO, as deeply as MF hates, he can love and he loved and wanted the recognition as a detective that he felt has deserved and this was the case that was going to make that happen. IMO.
.

There is no need for you to feel ashamed. It is those that don't see the relevance to his words on those tapes, who should feel ashamed, and the media who promenades him into America's homes as the modern day Sherlock Holmes that should feel ashamed. I personally believe that, if he planted the glove, it was a combination of the two things. I see no reason why adults cannot discuss race, we did just recently, without becoming combative. It is the underlying issues of race that are involved in this trial that some do not want to face but just assert that race was a part of the trial in their opinions.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .However, I feel just as strongly that no child should see their mother or listen to their mother abuse their father. . ."

is this a general statement or are you insinuating that Nicole 'abused' orenthal? If it is the latter, please provide a link -- other than her murderer's statement -- to credible proof that that ever happened.

thanks

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I also believe that both Sydeny and Justin were asked a few times, in many different ways, if they happened to see the blood drops on the walk way. IMO, if both of them denied seeing them, they would have been in court and testifying to this. ."

what blood drops on what walkway? Bundy?

[tv]

you chose to make it a racial slur. would it have been different if it would have been stated " you guys ..." ? for us, here in the South, we interchange guys and boys without thought and it isn't done with a racial attack in mind.

I am offended daily by your and Martin's comments about being ignorant and the personal attacks on a group of folks. tvdinner being called an insensitive b**** offended me. the personal attacks on bobaugust offend me. the attacks on fbgweezer, socal .... y'all's constant deliberate misspelling of joseph bell's name offends me ... I could go on but it adds no real value to the thread ... just like bringing up old posts that you CHOOSE to make racist...


Where's my apology?

Excellent post. :patriot:

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .My feelings regarding race totally have changed since the trial. . ."

I also believe my feelings regarding race totally changed since the trial.

[William Anthony]

you chose to make it a racial slur. would it have been different if it would have been stated " you guys ..." ? for us, here in the South, we interchange guys and boys without thought and it isn't done with a racial attack in mind.

I am offended daily by your and Martin's comments about being ignorant and the personal attacks on a group of folks. tvdinner being called an insensitive b**** offended me. the personal attacks on bobaugust offend me. the attacks on fbgweezer, socal .... y'all's constant deliberate misspelling of joseph bell's name offends me ... I could go on but it adds no real value to the thread ... just like bringing up old posts that you CHOOSE to make racist...


Where's my apology?

Before I give you a prolonged good leaving alone, let me set the record straight. To me it would have made a difference, if you said you guys. I have not said anyone is ignorant nor did another poster that was incorrectly blamed. I have no idea who called tvdinner that and have asked you to post the post, if you think I called her that, specifically stating, "tvdinner you are a..." I have respectfully asked you if you cannot to stop making the false claim and I will now respectfully request that you do the same for your claim that I called a poster ignorant. I made a typo once in regard to Bell and may have typed it again when I explained it was a typo. I have not used it since. I am offended that you do not find offensive any remarks made by anyone other than Limakey, Martin and me. You dismiss all the remarks, such as Simpson looking for fried chicken and calling adult males boys, sweetie or referring to them as being owned by someone or that there was an improper relationship between two male posters. I did not hear your offense when bobaugust posted he had no respect for me. My parents told me that "you may fool some of the people some of the time and you may fool all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time." For some strange reason your post stating that "Everything" southerners say is not racist popped into my mind. With that said, it is time for me to give you that prolonged good leaving alone. :seeya: ;) :cool: :)

[limakey]

TV,

I don't know every single African American. Heck, I don't even know every single member of my race, or of my gender or of my religion or of my ethic heritage. For me to even express how every single person of my own race reacted to the tapes, just isn't right---I have not lived in their shoes, I have not had the same experiences. Please, don't feel sorry for me that I felt shame, I learned so much from this experience that I do believe it has made me a better person---for the most part! I'm not as quick to judge others, regardless of race or gender. I'm more willing to keep listening, even when I want to walk away. I am definitely more careful regarding the words that I use and I certainly realized that while I might not be offend that does not mean that others were not. I am not afraid to express my feelings when I hear something that I do find offfensive--before, I just would have stayed there and not said a word, until I got into my car and talk to myself all the way home!

Any detective or LAPD member were within the law to immediately go over to Simpson's home. The had every reason to believe that Simpson was perhaps involved in this somehow and they had every reason to believe that he may have been inside his home or on his estate trying to destroy or cover up evidence.

I also believe the detectives were made aware of some of the comments that Sydney and/or Justin made regarding the last time they saw their father and where he was or where he was going.

I see nothing wrong with or illegal about them going over to Rockingham right off the bat. However, to deny that he was even suspect does not support the known skills of all of these detectives and LAPD members.

There is no way MF could have warned Nicole in 1985 that if she stayed with Simpson, her life was in danager and then expect me and others to believe that he did not go to Rockingham to find the man or the evidence to convict the man he believed murdered Nicole. IMO.

[SlowHandSam]

Before I give you a prolonged good leaving alone, let me set the record straight. To me it would have made a difference, if you said you guys. I have not said anyone is ignorant nor did another poster that was incorrectly blamed. I have no idea who called tvdinner that and have asked you to post the post, if you think I called her that, specifically stating, "tvdinner you are a..." I have respectfully asked you if you cannot to stop making the false claim and I will now respectfully request that you do the same for your claim that I called a poster ignorant. I made a typo once in regard to Bell and may have typed it again when I explained it was a typo. I have not used it since. I am offended that you do not find offensive any remarks made by anyone other than Limakey, Martin and me. You dismiss all the remarks, such as Simpson looking for fried chicken and calling adult males boys, sweetie or referring to them as being owned by someone or that there was an improper relationship between two male posters. I did not hear your offense when bobaugust posted he had no respect for me. My parents told me that "you may fool some of the people some of the time and you may fool all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time." For some strange reason your post stating that "Everything" southerners say is not racist popped into my mind. With that said, it is time for me to give you that prolonged good leaving alone. :seeya: ;) :cool: :)

I have no issue with bobaugust's statement to you about no respect because (1) clearly you have none for him with how you reply back and (2) I share his sentiments.

Have a super week!

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I also believe my feelings regarding race totally changed since the trial.

I think most reasonable people are aware of your feelings toward race. ;) :cool:

[limakey]

FBG,

Okay, it appears to me you want a truce so I will respond to your posts.

My statement regarding children seeing either or both their parents abuse one another is both a general statement and it does apply to this case. AC Cowlings gave a depositon where he talked about OJ's abuse of Nicole as well as Nicole's abuse of OJ.

Your feelings have changed toward race---was it for the better or for the worse?

[weezer]

TV,

I don't know every single African American. Heck, I don't even know every single member of my race, or of my gender or of my religion or of my ethic heritage. For me to even express how every single person of my own race reacted to the tapes, just isn't right---I have not lived in their shoes, I have not had the same experiences. Please, don't feel sorry for me that I felt shame, I learned so much from this experience that I do believe it has made me a better person---for the most part! I'm not as quick to judge others, regardless of race or gender. I'm more willing to keep listening, even when I want to walk away. I am definitely more careful regarding the words that I use and I certainly realized that while I might not be offend that does not mean that others were not. I am not afraid to express my feelings when I hear something that I do find offfensive--before, I just would have stayed there and not said a word, until I got into my car and talk to myself all the way home!

Any detective or LAPD member were within the law to immediately go over to Simpson's home. The had every reason to believe that Simpson was perhaps involved in this somehow and they had every reason to believe that he may have been inside his home or on his estate trying to destroy or cover up evidence.

Why would they not have been there for exactly the reasons stated? To inform a celebrity that his ex-wife was dead and his children had been taken to the police station for safe-keeping?

I also believe the detectives were made aware of some of the comments that Sydney and/or Justin made regarding the last time they saw their father and where he was or where he was going.

When do you believe the detectives were made aware of comments by the children?

I see nothing wrong with or illegal about them going over to Rockingham right off the bat. However, to deny that he was even suspect does not support the known skills of all of these detectives and LAPD members.

There is no way MF could have warned Nicole in 1985 that if she stayed with Simpson, her life was in danager and then expect me and others to believe that he did not go to Rockingham to find the man or the evidence to convict the man he believed murdered Nicole. IMO.

As to the last paragraph, there is and has never been evidence/testimony that in any way implicates Fuhrman. For a police officer to tell a woman of abuse that if she stays her life is in danger and for that woman to eventually be murdered is believable. To believe that Fuhrman waited years and then set-up the perfect frame, involving hundreds of people when all he had to do the night he warned Nicole was make sure the police report got int he right hands is silly.

[weezer]

FBG,

Okay, it appears to me you want a truce so I will respond to your posts.

My statement regarding children seeing either or both their parents abuse one another is both a general statement and it does apply to this case. AC Cowlings gave a depositon where he talked about OJ's abuse of Nicole as well as Nicole's abuse of OJ.

Your feelings have changed toward race---was it for the better or for the worse?

I honestly remember nothing in ac's testimony about Nicole abusing orenthal. I do remember several instances where he had to intervene on behalf of Nicole -- retreiving her clothes from a parking lot, taking her to the hospital, etc.

[limakey]

FBG,

Lets just say that you, TV and Slow hand all lived in Brentwood. While you weren't friends with either Nicole or Simpson, you did know both on sight, you did wave to one another, etc. and you knew the children lived with Nicole most of the time.

On the night of the murders, you three were just out walking around, couldn't sleep or just wanted to get some fresh air and you happened to walk by Bundy and see the scene. All the cop cars, blood, overheard that Nicole was dead or perhaps even saw her body. If the three of you ran right over to Mr. Simpson's home to alert him to come quick, something terrible has happened at Bundy---I find that to be a very reasonable and responsible response.

However, if the three of you were policeman or detectives with years and years of experinece between you, I'm not buying that. Your job training and experience forces you to consider that the ex spouse may very well be involved. Your experience and training would automatically kick in and you would get to Rockingham ASAP to prevent the suspect from destroying any evidence. Time is of the essence. IMO.

Another point to consider, what if Fuhrman had found that glove at 2:00 a.m. rather then hours later at Rockingham? And lets just say that NG's were protesting that it was an illegal search, etc. How long would it have taken the police as well as G's to post that of course they considered Simpson a suspect. Even with no history of domestic abuse, the ex is always the prime suspect! Of course they had to go over there without a warrant, they had to prevent Mr. Simpson from destroying evidence or even possibly killing himself.

I have no problem with Simpson being extended the courtsey of personal notification because of his fame, I have no problem with them going over there even using the kids as their excuse, however, I have a huge, huge problem with them denying that Simpson was not a suspect and that they didn't know where he was.

Sydney was said to have comments regarding a phone call and her mother was crying while in the police car. She also made some comments to her brother on why their father could not come and get them as well as made comments regarding both her parents seeing her last night dance --- per the female police officer who was assigned to watch them and keep them amused during this time.

In Freed's book, he claims that there is a cell phone record of one of Phililps phone call to the police station at around 2:00 a.m., with him asking someone to ask the children where there father was.

Apparently, there is also another cell phone record of the police contacting LAX and naming Simpson as suspect and to start looking around for evidence.

The battle of the cell phone records of the detectives was a heated one. They blacked out several saying these were personal phone calls, however, it is up to each us to decide what we believe. IMO.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .you would get to Rockingham ASAP to prevent the suspect from destroying any evidence. . ."

I believe just as strongly that the two people left for dead on the Bundy sidewalk were not near as important as the celebrity living on Rockingham and the derence paid to him was obvious.

Another point to consider, what if Fuhrman had found that glove at 2:00 a.m. rather then hours later at Rockingham? And lets just say that NG's were protesting that it was an illegal search, etc. How long would it have taken the police as well as G's to post that of course they considered Simpson a suspect. Even with no history of domestic abuse, the ex is always the prime suspect! Of course they had to go over there without a warrant, they had to prevent Mr. Simpson from destroying evidence or even possibly killing himself.

That's not a point limakey -- it simply never happened. and as far as orenthal killing himself, it was LE that begged him to think of his children, family, friends when he was holding the gun to his head threatening suicide.

I have no problem with Simpson being extended the courtsey of personal notification because of his fame, I have no problem with them going over there even using the kids as their excuse, however, I have a huge, huge problem with them denying that Simpson was not a suspect and that they didn't know where he was.

What excuse? orenthal was afforded the deference paid to celebreties. why would LE know where orenthal was? his daughter had to call his secretary to find out where he was AND she had talked to him!

Sydney was said to have comments regarding a phone call and her mother was crying while in the police car. She also made some comments to her brother on why their father could not come and get them as well as made comments regarding both her parents seeing her last night dance --- per the female police officer who was assigned to watch them and keep them amused during this time.

Please link to the statements of the female police officer.

In Freed's book, he claims that there is a cell phone record of one of Phililps phone call to the police station at around 2:00 a.m., with him asking someone to ask the children where there father was.

Please post page number where this is stated.

Apparently, there is also another cell phone record of the police contacting LAX and naming Simpson as suspect and to start looking around for evidence.

Please post link to this statement.

The battle of the cell phone records of the detectives was a heated one. They blacked out several saying these were personal phone calls, however, it is up to each us to decide what we believe. IMO.

I believe that ANYONE who buys into Fuhrman was there commiting the crimes hours before they happened or that hundred of LE and citizens framed oenthal is . . .

[limakey]

FBG,

It has been a long time, AC gave statements regarding a time when Nicole kicked OJ and OJ did nothing but cover up and said nothing to Nicole or did not respond. Another time, I think was they were by the pool and Sydney was about 3 and Nicole started lacing into Simpson with much "vigor" and angry words and AC grabbed Sydney and took her inside the house and later spoke to Nicole about her actions and words in front of her daughter.


MF has felt for years his skills and training have been ignored and he was angry that he did not get the promotions he felt he deserved. He knew that this case was going to be the case that really could earn him the promotion or the recognition he felt he deserved and it didn't matter who killed them.


MF saw and seized the opportunity to "show case" his skills. Too bad for him that his skills of being a racist and a evidence planting liar completly nullified his testimony. IMO.

[William Anthony]

FBG,




MF has felt for years his skills and training have been ignored and he was angry that he did not get the promotions he felt he deserved. He knew that this case was going to be the case that really could earn him the promotion or the recognition he felt he deserved and it didn't matter who killed them.


MF saw and seized the opportunity to "show case" his skills. Too bad for him that his skills of being a racist and a evidence planting liar completly nullified his testimony. IMO.

Here, Here, :beer: :beer: :cool:

[limakey]

FBG,

Okay, I am going to take William's route, I am going to give you a good leaving alone----after this post.

I never stated that Fuhrman committed the actual crimes. I have stated that he or any other police officer or detective were well with in the law to act immediately on the fact that Simpson may well have been involved in these murders. In fact, it was there duty to act on this. Especially Fuhrman who warned Nicole her life was in danger.

When I posted the comment that I had no problem even with them suspecting that Simpson might be trying to kill himself on his estate, I clearly was not talking about the Bronco chase. A few years ago, two college star football stars were celebrating their signing of pro contracts. They were drunk and joy riding. There was an accident, the man that was driving realized that his friend was tossed from the car and found him dead. This man was so distraught over this, he took the shot gun out of the trunck of his car and blew his head off. I grew up next to a girl who was murdered by her boyfriend and after he finished chasing her down, he ate his gun. Murder/Suicides are not that uncommon, IMO. Didn't a police chief in Seattle do the same to his wife, killed her in front the kids then ate his gun?

In Tom Lange's testimony, he talks about the phone call that Sydney over heard and there is also a transcript regarding the side bar debate on this subject.

I already told you about the cell phone debate in the trial. Both sides battled it out and the DA's won. Remember the cell phone calls that were blacked out?

In regards to what Sydney may have said that night---in several of the books, also Shirely I can't remember her last name right now. She is a very experienced crime beat writer, right up their with Linda Ducteh. I think her name was Shirely Perlman. (I really mispelled the last names, sorry!)

Arnelle was not the daughter that I was talking about. We also know that OJ called Sydney that night before he left for Chicago.

One last time, Fuhrman would not have been committing any crime by going over to Rockingham. It was his job.

Now it is time for a "good leaving alone".

[William Anthony]

If you want to believe that Mark Fuhrman and Brad Roberts had any reason to phone Simpson's home I'd like to see the proof. The only connection that they have to this case is being called to the Bundy location early on in the investigation. Kato heard the phone ringing so it had to be Mark Fuhrman. Why?

I'm sorry you felt ashamed of your race. Do you think blacks feel ashamed of their race when Farrakhan, the NATION OF ISLAM minister, calls the white man the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devil? You know, the upstanding organization that guarded Johnnie Cochran?

:read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/01/10_racist.html

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I also believe my feelings regarding race totally changed since the trial.

Why?

[weezer]

FBG,

It has been a long time, AC gave statements regarding a time when Nicole kicked OJ and OJ did nothing but cover up and said nothing to Nicole or did not respond. Another time, I think was they were by the pool and Sydney was about 3 and Nicole started lacing into Simpson with much "vigor" and angry words and AC grabbed Sydney and took her inside the house and later spoke to Nicole about her actions and words in front of her daughter.

I'm looking at ac's testimony and statements right now and I'm not finding your claims.

MF has felt for years his skills and training have been ignored and he was angry that he did not get the promotions he felt he deserved. He knew that this case was going to be the case that really could earn him the promotion or the recognition he felt he deserved and it didn't matter who killed them.

I assume that you intended to also put 'imo' after this statement since you have absolutely no way of knowing what Furhman felt or knew and since there is no evidence that what you claim is true.


MF saw and seized the opportunity to "show case" his skills. Too bad for him that his skills of being a racist and a evidence planting liar completly nullified his testimony. IMO.

on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, there is NO evidence that Furhman or ANY LE planted evidence.

[William Anthony]

I do believe that the Nation of Islam and most reasonable people do not believe that Jesus was a blue-eyed, blond-haired White man, considering the location of his birth and Solomon's statement, "I am Comely, I am Black", and the description of God in the burning bush. The Bible also warns against making graven images unto God. While I do not agree with Farakan's remarks, I understand the historical context that may have prompted him to say them. While I do not agree with them, I am not ashamed of them, because I understand the significance of history in making his remarks and understand the possible anger and frustration he felt. I am not excusing them but just trying to allow others the chance to understand why he possibly made them.

[bobaugust]

I see that you have not changed and that it matters not how many times I post certain redundant information you either do not comprehend or fail to accept it. Simpson was not required to prove he was excluded. The prosecution was required to prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson did it. Your posts are false, just as your allocation of the burden of proof. You really should garner some information on how a trial is conducted before you allow that tongue of yours unbridled access to tomfoolery.

You're the one William who has made the claim that because Simpson had dandruff periodically in his life it is somehow reasonable to assume that he had dandruff the night of murders and then you argue that your claim is a reasonable inference. Your claim is neither logical or reasonable. Simpson's attorneys may not have been required to prove Simpson was excluded from being the killer but if there was evidence that did exclude him they would been remiss in not presenting it. Unfortunately for Simpson there was no evidence that excluded him.

bobaugust

[limakey]

TV,

Are you asking me why I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham and why do I think that he was the one who was calling the estate?

I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham because he was following not only his gut instincts but also is extensive knowledge of the law as well as experience. While I do not have a high opinon of MF, I never said that he was not an intelligent man. I do not believe that Fuhrman and Roberts or any other detective going over to Rockingham ASAP was illegal.

I would expect that MF and/or Roberts would have used the telephone at the gate to see if in fact, anyone would answer it. I would expect some member of the LAPD to continue to try to contact someone inside the house at that time. I would also find it reasonable that if no one was answering the phone inside the home, it may have only meant mean 3 things to the police, Simpson is not home, he is dead or wounded or he is hiding. I find it perfectly reasonable for any of the detectives to call the station or any LAPD member to ask either Sydney or Justin if they were their father was. In fact, had they done that, I wouldn't be as distrustful of their actions as I am.

What I do find to be reasonable or acceptable is the testimony that directly flies in the face of reason. If they thought Mr. Simpson may have been a victim, or his housekeeper, or any one on the estate at 5:00 a.m., then why didn't they have the same concerns at 1 or 2:00 a.m.? What were they waiting for?

Again, if they had true concerns about the health of Mr. Simpson and/or the housekeeper, it flies in the face of logic they did not have medical personnel, at least in route and they did not gain access to the house right away. I'm sure Westec or even perhaps a battering ram would have worked to get inside the house.

Did any of the police ask either Arnelle or Kato about the maid in side the house? Did the police ever appear or make it apparent to Arnelle they needed to get inside the house ASAP because someone may be injured inside?

IMO, the detectives words and actions do not even come close to the story they were telling the on the stand. I won't even use the word testimony in regards to this issue.

[weezer]

FBG,

Okay, I am going to take William's route, I am going to give you a good leaving alone----after this post.

I never stated that Fuhrman committed the actual crimes. I have stated that he or any other police officer or detective were well with in the law to act immediately on the fact that Simpson may well have been involved in these murders. In fact, it was there duty to act on this. Especially Fuhrman who warned Nicole her life was in danger.

:confused: Fuhrman had no more duty to act immediately than any other officer. Yes, LE was well within the law to notify the ex-husband and father of the children that the mother of their children was dead and that the children were at the police station and someone needed to take care of them.

When I posted the comment that I had no problem even with them suspecting that Simpson might be trying to kill himself on his estate, I clearly was not talking about the Bronco chase. A few years ago, two college star football stars were celebrating their signing of pro contracts. They were drunk and joy riding. There was an accident, the man that was driving realized that his friend was tossed from the car and found him dead. This man was so distraught over this, he took the shot gun out of the trunck of his car and blew his head off. I grew up next to a girl who was murdered by her boyfriend and after he finished chasing her down, he ate his gun. Murder/Suicides are not that uncommon, IMO. Didn't a police chief in Seattle do the same to his wife, killed her in front the kids then ate his gun?

orenthal did want to kill himself -- at kardashian's and in the bronco -- he just didn't have the cajones -- most bullies don't and he's no exception.
In Tom Lange's testimony, he talks about the phone call that Sydney over heard and there is also a transcript regarding the side bar debate on this subject.

I already told you about the cell phone debate in the trial. Both sides battled it out and the DA's won. Remember the cell phone calls that were blacked out?

In regards to what Sydney may have said that night---in several of the books, also Shirely I can't remember her last name right now. She is a very experienced crime beat writer, right up their with Linda Ducteh. I think her name was Shirely Perlman. (I really mispelled the last names, sorry!)

Yes, there was a statement that Sydney did hear her mother on the phone crying. I believe it is logical to assume it was orenthal calling to berate and harrass her. I would still like to see a link to anything that quotes the children making statements.

Arnelle was not the daughter that I was talking about. We also know that OJ called Sydney that night before he left for Chicago.

One last time, Fuhrman would not have been committing any crime by going over to Rockingham. It was his job.

Now it is time for a "good leaving alone".

you have a nice day now, hear?

[martin II]

on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, there is NO evidence that Furhman or ANY LE planted evidence.

If one views the trial from the vantage point of a ostrich sp one would be able to post generic post until ones fingers cramp up.

[weezer]

If one views the trial from the vantage point of a ostrich sp one would be able to post generic post until ones fingers cramp up.

and if one can't see the evidence through the color of the defendant, one is able to post unsubstatiated nonsense and pretend evidence until ones fingers cramp up.

[martin II]

TV,

Are you asking me why I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham and why do I think that he was the one who was calling the estate?

I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham because he was following not only his gut instincts but also is extensive knowledge of the law as well as experience. While I do not have a high opinon of MF, I never said that he was not an intelligent man. I do not believe that Fuhrman and Roberts or any other detective going over to Rockingham ASAP was illegal.

I would expect that MF and/or Roberts would have used the telephone at the gate to see if in fact, anyone would answer it. I would expect some member of the LAPD to continue to try to contact someone inside the house at that time. I would also find it reasonable that if no one was answering the phone inside the home, it may have only meant mean 3 things to the police, Simpson is not home, he is dead or wounded or he is hiding. I find it perfectly reasonable for any of the detectives to call the station or any LAPD member to ask either Sydney or Justin if they were their father was. In fact, had they done that, I wouldn't be as distrustful of their actions as I am.

What I do find to be reasonable or acceptable is the testimony that directly flies in the face of reason. If they thought Mr. Simpson may have been a victim, or his housekeeper, or any one on the estate at 5:00 a.m., then why didn't they have the same concerns at 1 or 2:00 a.m.? What were they waiting for?

Again, if they had true concerns about the health of Mr. Simpson and/or the housekeeper, it flies in the face of logic they did not have medical personnel, at least in route and they did not gain access to the house right away. I'm sure Westec or even perhaps a battering ram would have worked to get inside the house.

Did any of the police ask either Arnelle or Kato about the maid in side the house? Did the police ever appear or make it apparent to Arnelle they needed to get inside the house ASAP because someone may be injured inside?

IMO, the detectives words and actions do not even come close to the story they were telling the on the stand. I won't even use the word testimony in regards to this issue.

I have always wonder why the detectives waited 3 hours to go to ojs house.
Once they understood oj nor the maid was there, it was time for them to walk to the gate and leave. But no they searched the property illegally.

[martin II]

and if one can't see the evidence through the color of the defendant, one is able to post unsubstatiated nonsense and pretend evidence until ones fingers cramp up.

The defendant did not offer evidence other than to show how the prosecutions claims were false and The Furhman was a scum bag. BUt they really did not offer evidence on him he did it on himself.

[martin II]

I think most reasonable people are aware of your feelings toward race. ;) :cool:

weezer
i believe previously you had posted that your fellings on race had change after the civil rights movement. right?

[limakey]

William and Mr. August,

Okay, lets have the reader digest version of the hair testimony, okay?

The hair found at the scene was only consistent with an African-American, correct? From my understanding of the testimony, from the hair samples from the hat, that it could not be proved if it came from an African American male or female, correct?

Am I correct that while the hair samples can't not exclude Mr. Simpson, they can not conclusively prove it was his hair?

[weezer]

I have always wonder why the detectives waited 3 hours to go to ojs house.
Once they understood oj nor the maid was there, it was time for them to walk to the gate and leave. But no they searched the property illegally.

if the search had been illegal, the evidence would have been excluded -- the evidence was introducted in the trial so - nothing illegal.

[SlowHandSam]

weezer
i believe previously you had posted that your fellings on race had change after the civil rights movement. right?

since when did the oj simpson trial become the civil rights movement?

[bobaugust]

TV,

Are you asking me why I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham and why do I think that he was the one who was calling the estate?

I believe Fuhrman went over to Rockingham because he was following not only his gut instincts but also is extensive knowledge of the law as well as experience. While I do not have a high opinon of MF, I never said that he was not an intelligent man. I do not believe that Fuhrman and Roberts or any other detective going over to Rockingham ASAP was illegal.

I would expect that MF and/or Roberts would have used the telephone at the gate to see if in fact, anyone would answer it. I would expect some member of the LAPD to continue to try to contact someone inside the house at that time. I would also find it reasonable that if no one was answering the phone inside the home, it may have only meant mean 3 things to the police, Simpson is not home, he is dead or wounded or he is hiding. I find it perfectly reasonable for any of the detectives to call the station or any LAPD member to ask either Sydney or Justin if they were their father was. In fact, had they done that, I wouldn't be as distrustful of their actions as I am.

What I do find to be reasonable or acceptable is the testimony that directly flies in the face of reason. If they thought Mr. Simpson may have been a victim, or his housekeeper, or any one on the estate at 5:00 a.m., then why didn't they have the same concerns at 1 or 2:00 a.m.? What were they waiting for?

Again, if they had true concerns about the health of Mr. Simpson and/or the housekeeper, it flies in the face of logic they did not have medical personnel, at least in route and they did not gain access to the house right away. I'm sure Westec or even perhaps a battering ram would have worked to get inside the house.

Did any of the police ask either Arnelle or Kato about the maid in side the house? Did the police ever appear or make it apparent to Arnelle they needed to get inside the house ASAP because someone may be injured inside?

IMO, the detectives words and actions do not even come close to the story they were telling the on the stand. I won't even use the word testimony in regards to this issue.

limakey, you say "If they thought Mr. Simpson may have been a victim, or his housekeeper, or any one on the estate at 5:00 a.m., then why didn't they have the same concerns at 1 or 2:00 a.m.? What were they waiting for?"

When the detectives were at Bundy they had no reason to suspect Simpson was involved in the murders nor did they have any reason to be concerned that Simpson could be a victim let alone his housekeeper. Those concerns arose after they went to Rockingham to notify Simpson of the death of his ex wife. After no one responded to the gate bell or the telephone. After they were were informed that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house. After the detectives saw blood on the outside of Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

[limakey]

FBG,

Right back at cha!

[martin II]

You insist that using the word boy is a racial slur but want to say it's okay to use Gold-man to describe a Jew? I'm to believe that you weren't being anti-Jewish with the Gold-man remark? It's that old double-standard again. I don't object to your criticism of Fred Goldman. What I object to is the vile way that you express it.

I have made my opinion clear that i consider Fred to be a money grabber and therefore the Gold-man comment if i did indeed say that.I really don't remember. Most people north or south know that calling a adult black man 'BOY' is demeaning insult which is why most that may have used it in the past had long stopped. That is most but you. I consider calling the mostly black women of the jury Ignorrant, uneducated and biased to be vile.I consider ignoring Furhmans admitted racial hatered of people not like him to be vile.imo

[bobaugust]

William and Mr. August,

Okay, lets have the reader digest version of the hair testimony, okay?

The hair found at the scene was only consistent with an African-American, correct? From my understanding of the testimony, from the hair samples from the hat, that it could not be proved if it came from an African American male or female, correct?

Am I correct that while the hair samples can't not exclude Mr. Simpson, they can not conclusively prove it was his hair?

limakey, there were 10 hairs found in the knit cap, 2 hairs on the knit cap. and one hair found on Ron's shirt that all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair samples.

bobaugust

[SlowHandSam]

I have made my opinion clear that i consider Fred to be a money grabber and therefore the Gold-man comment if i did indeed say that.I really don't remember. Most people north or south know that calling a adult black man 'BOY' is demeaning insult which is why most that may have used it in the past had long stopped. That is most but you. I consider calling the mostly black women of the jury Ignorrant, uneducated and biased to be vile.I consider ignoring Furhmans admitted racial hatered of people not like him to be vile.imo

so, just so I'm clear on this ... it's okay for you to use a phrase that some consider vile and a racial epithet but it isn't okay for someone to say "boy" ... it was not "BOY" ... it was "you boys" ... there is a completely different context.

but, I just want to make sure I understand that you can continue to use a phrase that you've been told is offensive and racist but no one else, on this board, can?

[martin II]

William and Mr. August,

Okay, lets have the reader digest version of the hair testimony, okay?

The hair found at the scene was only consistent with an African-American, correct? From my understanding of the testimony, from the hair samples from the hat, that it could not be proved if it came from an African American male or female, correct?

Am I correct that while the hair samples can't not exclude Mr. Simpson, they can not conclusively prove it was his hair?

limakey
i will buy that.That is why i had always tossed the cap as evidence it belonged to OJ.