Follow the Money all the way to Vegas

[weezer]

Oh, I think I have been using it long enough for those here to know that when I use MF I am referring to the convicted perjuring, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, racist, conceded by the prosecution, evidence planting, as supported by the evidence, detective. Imho, if I spelled out his name I would still be saying bad words.

your name calling is misleading william. there is and has never been any credible evidence that Fuhrman planted evidence. only the desperate statements by posters who thought we were discussing something besides the murders.

[William Anthony]

your name calling is misleading william. there is and has never been any credible evidence that Fuhrman planted evidence. only the desperate statements by posters who thought we were discussing something besides the murders.

There is nothing misleading about his statements when he wasn't under oath. Need I remind you that the only time he was proven to have lied was when he was under oath. Hence, he will forever be MF, convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter, as supported by the evidence. I find myself in the eerie position of upholding MF for speaking truthfully when he wasn't under oath. Will wonders never cease? I think we have strayed off-topic for this thread.

[martin II]

Hi Martin. Welcome back. Your grandson or grandaughter was graduating from college? Congratulations on that.

Simpson believes there is property that belongs to him in a hotel room in Vegas. So he takes his 'little friend' (AKA pistol) and his big friends (AKA goons) and storms into the hotel room screaming threats unless he gets his 'stuff' back. Now a reasonable person like you or I would contact the police, advise them of the situation, possible contact our lawyer as well (particularly since Simpson is rather well known because of a couple of murders in LA) and allow them to handle the situation. That is what a reasonable and law abiding person would do. IMHO

Two girls graduating to Kindergarden.

The FBI knew of ojs plans to get his stuff some time before the incident at the hotel and decided there was no reason for them to be involved.

It is always easy for someone not involved to say what someone that was involved should have done.

You have not posted a link to any judge awarding ownership of ojs stuff to fred as you claim. That would be a way for you to back up your claim.

[martin II]

I think we saw where this is going when the judge ordered orenthal to turn over his 'rolex' -- LOL -- I'm still wondering where the real one is.

I think you are overlooking the fact that fred asked for all of the stuff when he asked for the rolex and the judge said no and sent the rolex back to oj based on freds false claims about the rolex.

[martin II]

You've got me intrigued. The FBI knew that Simpson was going to storm into that Vegas hotel room with his little friend and his big friends? And the FBI did nothing? When did they know? A month before? A week before? An hour before? Why did they do nothing to prevent that from happening? Was it perhaps that they knew what Simpson was up to was illegal and the 'stuff' he was trying to get was part of what should have been sold to repay the Brown/Goldman estates a tiny part of the money he is legally obliged to repay them? Perhaps they were being officers of justice and watching Simpson incriminate himself?

If you have read any of the reports about the los vegas hotel incident or discussion posted here, you would know the answers to some the questions you ask in your post.

Please post a link proving your claim that the stuff in quesiton has been awarded to fred by any judge.

martin II

[William Anthony]

I think you are overlooking the fact that fred asked for all of the stuff when he asked for the rolex and the judge said no and sent the rolex back to oj based on freds false claims about the rolex.

I thought about this and the answer may be that Nevada does not have the jurisdiction to allow the enforcement of a California civil award for damages. I did some quick research and it appears that jurisdiction will be allowed under Nevada law if due process has been satisfied. This opens up a panoply of issues on personal jurisdiction, imho. If the Nevada court does not have the right to enforce the California award, then technically, since the property was in Nevada, it might well belong to Simpson. I will try to do more research on the issue in my spare time.

[weezer]

If you have read any of the reports about the los vegas hotel incident or discussion posted here, you would know the answers to some the questions you ask in your post.

Please post a link proving your claim that the stuff in quesiton has been awarded to fred by any judge.

martin II

please post a link proving your claim that the stuff in 'quesiton' belonged to orenthal.

[weezer]

Disputed Items

Simpson’s All-American football
Simpson’s Hall of Fame plaque
Simpson and J. Edgar Hoover photo
Joe Montaina Lithographs (30-50)
Pete Rose and Duke Snider autographed baseballs (24)

http://www.uslaw.com/pop/category/celebrity-justice/oj-simpson/

[weezer]

Charges

Two counts of first-degree kidnapping
Two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon
Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon
Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon
Conspiracy to commit kidnapping
Conspiracy to commit robbery
Misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a crime
Simpson also faces one felony charge of coercion with use of a deadly weapon

Evidence: Criminal Complaint, Police Report, Police Interview.

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas
.
Jun 20, 2008 8:14 PM (18 hrs ago) By KEN RITTER, AP
O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas «

Filed under: LAS VEGAS , KEN RITTER , OJ Simpson

LAS VEGAS (Map, News) - O.J. Simpson's lawyers lost a bid Friday to question prospective jurors in his armed-robbery trial about what they know and think about the former football star.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass also rejected the lawyers' attempt to use a long pretrial questionnaire to gauge how those in the jury pool might respond to defense strategies.

Simpson, Charles Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart face kidnapping and other charges on suspicion of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room in September.

Defense lawyers are concerned about seating an impartial jury because of Simpson's celebrity - as an NFL Hall of Famer and the acquitted defendant in the Los Angeles slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

"There's people probably out there, judge, that believe Mr. Simpson doesn't have right to be out on the street, much less own property," defense lawyer Gabriel Grasso said.

"The jurors, basically, know a decent amount about my client before I open my mouth," he said.

Grasso also argued to quiz jurors about two possible defense strategies without saying what the questions would be. None of the questions in the questionnaire have been made public.

One question would have dealt with Simpson believing items he and several other men took from two memorabilia dealers belonged to him. The other would have addressed Simpson being present but not the orchestrator of the event.

The judge removed both questions. She allowed 76 others, and possibly one more, if defense lawyers and prosecutors agree to the wording before another pretrial status hearing July 31.

Lawyers said last month they were considering 115 questions. Many questions the judge accepted have multiple parts, they said.

Glass called the questionnaire the longest she has handled in her more than five years on the bench. She said she wanted it completed in time to hand out in August to 400 or more prospective jurors and expedite what both sides expect will be a contentious jury selection.

"This jury selection is not going to go on and on," she said. "We're looking for jurors for all of the defendants and the state that can be fair and impartial."

The judge also rejected another request to separate Simpson's trial from co-defendants Ehrlich and Stewart.

Simpson, Ehrlich and Stewart did not attend the hearing. Each has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on allegations they robbed two sports collectibles dealers at gunpoint last Sept. 13 at a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. A robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

[William Anthony]

O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas
.
Jun 20, 2008 8:14 PM (18 hrs ago) By KEN RITTER, AP
O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas «

Filed under: LAS VEGAS , KEN RITTER , OJ Simpson

LAS VEGAS (Map, News) - O.J. Simpson's lawyers lost a bid Friday to question prospective jurors in his armed-robbery trial about what they know and think about the former football star.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass also rejected the lawyers' attempt to use a long pretrial questionnaire to gauge how those in the jury pool might respond to defense strategies.

Simpson, Charles Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart face kidnapping and other charges on suspicion of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room in September.

Defense lawyers are concerned about seating an impartial jury because of Simpson's celebrity - as an NFL Hall of Famer and the acquitted defendant in the Los Angeles slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

"There's people probably out there, judge, that believe Mr. Simpson doesn't have right to be out on the street, much less own property," defense lawyer Gabriel Grasso said.

"The jurors, basically, know a decent amount about my client before I open my mouth," he said.

Grasso also argued to quiz jurors about two possible defense strategies without saying what the questions would be. None of the questions in the questionnaire have been made public.

One question would have dealt with Simpson believing items he and several other men took from two memorabilia dealers belonged to him. The other would have addressed Simpson being present but not the orchestrator of the event.

The judge removed both questions. She allowed 76 others, and possibly one more, if defense lawyers and prosecutors agree to the wording before another pretrial status hearing July 31.

Lawyers said last month they were considering 115 questions. Many questions the judge accepted have multiple parts, they said.

Glass called the questionnaire the longest she has handled in her more than five years on the bench. She said she wanted it completed in time to hand out in August to 400 or more prospective jurors and expedite what both sides expect will be a contentious jury selection.

"This jury selection is not going to go on and on," she said. "We're looking for jurors for all of the defendants and the state that can be fair and impartial."

The judge also rejected another request to separate Simpson's trial from co-defendants Ehrlich and Stewart.

Simpson, Ehrlich and Stewart did not attend the hearing. Each has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on allegations they robbed two sports collectibles dealers at gunpoint last Sept. 13 at a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. A robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

I do not know about the jury questions but, imho, if testimony on whether or not Simpson believed the property belonged to him is not allowed, there will be an appeal and, most likely, an immediate one.

[tv]

O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas
.
Jun 20, 2008 8:14 PM (18 hrs ago) By KEN RITTER, AP
O.J. Simpson jury questions reviewed in Vegas «

Filed under: LAS VEGAS , KEN RITTER , OJ Simpson

LAS VEGAS (Map, News) - O.J. Simpson's lawyers lost a bid Friday to question prospective jurors in his armed-robbery trial about what they know and think about the former football star.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass also rejected the lawyers' attempt to use a long pretrial questionnaire to gauge how those in the jury pool might respond to defense strategies.

Simpson, Charles Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart face kidnapping and other charges on suspicion of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room in September.

Defense lawyers are concerned about seating an impartial jury because of Simpson's celebrity - as an NFL Hall of Famer and the acquitted defendant in the Los Angeles slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

"There's people probably out there, judge, that believe Mr. Simpson doesn't have right to be out on the street, much less own property," defense lawyer Gabriel Grasso said.

"The jurors, basically, know a decent amount about my client before I open my mouth," he said.

Grasso also argued to quiz jurors about two possible defense strategies without saying what the questions would be. None of the questions in the questionnaire have been made public.

One question would have dealt with Simpson believing items he and several other men took from two memorabilia dealers belonged to him. The other would have addressed Simpson being present but not the orchestrator of the event.

The judge removed both questions. She allowed 76 others, and possibly one more, if defense lawyers and prosecutors agree to the wording before another pretrial status hearing July 31.

Lawyers said last month they were considering 115 questions. Many questions the judge accepted have multiple parts, they said.

Glass called the questionnaire the longest she has handled in her more than five years on the bench. She said she wanted it completed in time to hand out in August to 400 or more prospective jurors and expedite what both sides expect will be a contentious jury selection.

"This jury selection is not going to go on and on," she said. "We're looking for jurors for all of the defendants and the state that can be fair and impartial."

The judge also rejected another request to separate Simpson's trial from co-defendants Ehrlich and Stewart.

Simpson, Ehrlich and Stewart did not attend the hearing. Each has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on allegations they robbed two sports collectibles dealers at gunpoint last Sept. 13 at a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. A robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

Thanks for listing the disputed items and the charges. I was a little unsure of both. As for not seating an impartial jury, I think if Simpson had conducted himself like a good citizen and normal human being after the criminal trial it wouldn't be so difficult.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for listing the disputed items and the charges. I was a little unsure of both. As for not seating an impartial jury, I think if Simpson had conducted himself like a good citizen and normal human being after the criminal trial it wouldn't be so difficult.

I see that you have already formed an opinion on his conduct. I hope that does not include an opinion that he is guilty as charged.

[tv]

I see that you have already formed an opinion on his conduct. I hope that does not include an opinion that he is guilty as charged.

The conduct I'm speaking of occurred between the criminal trial and the heist in Vegas. If the prosecution meets their burden he'll go down and if they don't he'll walk, unless of course they seat a jury comparable to the one in the criminal trial and then anything could happen. Many people have seen the way he didn't look for the 'real killers' like he said he would, showing up to hawk his signature at slasher conventions, the porno video, stealing cable, his volatile relationship with Prody...the list goes on and on...and it shades their opinion of him. The prudent thing for him to do would have been to attempt to lead a more sedate life. He didn't so here we are.

[weezer]

I do not know about the jury questions but, imho, if testimony on whether or not Simpson believed the property belonged to him is not allowed, there will be an appeal and, most likely, an immediate one.

nothing said about the testimony -- this deals with the questions to the prospective jurors. sounds to me like the defense was trying to 'shop' which one they should go with.

[William Anthony]

nothing said about the testimony -- this deals with the questions to the prospective jurors. sounds to me like the defense was trying to 'shop' which one they should go with.

That is the purpose of jury questions for both sides.

[martin II]

The conduct I'm speaking of occurred between the criminal trial and the heist in Vegas. If the prosecution meets their burden he'll go down and if they don't he'll walk, unless of course they seat a jury comparable to the one in the criminal trial and then anything could happen. Many people have seen the way he didn't look for the 'real killers' like he said he would, showing up to hawk his signature at slasher conventions, the porno video, stealing cable, his volatile relationship with Prody...the list goes on and on...and it shades their opinion of him. The prudent thing for him to do would have been to attempt to lead a more sedate life. He didn't so here we are.

I don't think the jury will be asked to consider the things you consider important.

[William Anthony]

I don't think the jury will be asked to consider the things you consider important.

They probably will even thought they are not asked, imho.

[weezer]

They probably will even thought they are not asked, imho.

a decent law-abiding man wouldn't have to worry about it but then we are talking about orenthal and we know that doesn't describe him. ;)

[William Anthony]

a decent law-abiding man wouldn't have to worry about it but then we are talking about orenthal and we know that doesn't describe him. ;)

It remains to be seen if he was a law-abiding citizen, in this instance. Decent-well I am at a lost for words. :). I don't know that anyone is required to be or act decent, although I wish they were. :)

[weezer]

It remains to be seen if he was a law-abiding citizen, in this instance. Decent-well I am at a lost for words. :). I don't know that anyone is required to be or act decent, although I wish they were. :)

no william -- he hasn't been law-abiding -- of that you can be certain. I can expect people to act decent.

pst -- the term is 'loss' for words.

[William Anthony]

no william -- he hasn't been law-abiding -- of that you can be certain. I can expect people to act decent.

pst -- the term is 'loss' for words.

One of the days, I am going to retire you but, obviously it won't be today.:) I can hope people act and are decent.

[tv]

I don't think the jury will be asked to consider the things you consider important.Probably not but everyone is aware of his transgressions over the years and it will be hard to erase that knowledge. Some people can do it and some can't.

[martin II]

I'm asking you.:D

j Bell
It does not work that way. If you have a series of quesitons that you seek answers to, you have to take responsibility to do your own research so you can try to post informed info.Not ask me to do your work.

[socaldiva]

j Bell
It does not work that way. If you have a series of quesitons that you seek answers to, you have to take responsibility to do your own research so you can try to post informed info.Not ask me to do your work.

You really should take your own advice ;)

[William Anthony]

Probably not but everyone is aware of his transgressions over the years and it will be hard to erase that knowledge. Some people can do it and some can't.

I would venture that most can't. It seems that he wants to keep the attention, for some seemingly strange reason.

[martin II]

They probably will even thought they are not asked, imho.

Does anyone know if a requirement for jury duty is that one has never been accused or convicted of ANY crime?

[William Anthony]

William I AGREE with your post! ..except for 'seemingly strange'. He's a thug who murdered 2 innocent people and got away with it. His mindset is .."I've killed 2 human beings and they couldn't pin it on me so I'm untouchable. I can do what I like now and threaten and go berserk and show no remorse or empathy with Ron and Nicole and their families (even though I used to be a member of Nicole's family)". Of course he wants the attention, he thrives on it because without it he would become just another footnote. Before the murders he was just another hasbeen football player. This reprehensible notoriety he 'enjoys' (and I shudder to use the word but that is exactly how he comes across to me) is what gets him noticed. Good attention or bad attention. He obviously doesn't care which. Just as long as someone within earshot says "There goes.....

I think you need to get some fact straights or say, imo.

[Kate Sachel]

Does anyone know if a requirement for jury duty is that one has never been accused or convicted of ANY crime?

I believe that you are only unable to serve on a jury if you have a felony on your record.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

June 20, 2008
Las Vegas spotlight: Simpson status check today
Posted: 11:59 AM ET

LAS VEGAS, Nevada–It’s time again for the monthly status check hearing here in Las Vegas for the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case.

I find these hearings extremely interesting because you often learn where both sides may be going once the trial begins.

First up today is a renewed motion for severance by co-defendant Charles Ehrlich. He is asking the court once again to separate his trial from Simpson’s. Co-defendant C.J. Stewart is joining in this motion.

I can tell from speaking with Ehrlich’s attorney Robert Lucherini that he is extremely concerned that negative jury reaction toward Simpson may spill over to the other co-defendants. But this is a conspiracy case and they are never severed here in Clark County; I have been told by the media judge for the District Court there has never been a severance in a conspiracy case.

Another issue on tap for today: as both sides continue to put together the long jury questionnaire that will kick off jury selection in September, prosecutors are at odds with the defense on some of the proposed questions.

Simpson’s defense team wants a question to be included on whether jurors believe Simpson has a right to earn a living, and an obligation to support his children. The prosecution says this is not appropriate for the questionnaire and is actually part of the defense theory that Simpson was retrieving the memorabilia for the financial benefit of his family.

We’ll see it all as it is argued in court.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/las-vegas-spotlight-simpson-status-check-today/


two thoughts on this .... he should have thought about supporting his kids and making a living before he butchered his ex-wife and Ronald.

Secondly, his kids are almost 40, 38, almost 23 and almost 20. He doesn't *have* to support them at this point in their lives. *most* kids are supporting themselves by their ages.

[William Anthony]

At what age of a child is it appropriate for a parent to feel that they have no obligation, legal and moral, to provide for their children? I know that my parents did all they could to provide for my and my sister's future and it did not stop, when we reached 18 or when we took on raising a family. Unfortunately, it stopped with their deaths and we were the beneficiaries of their estate. So, I guess you can say it continued after their deaths.

[William Anthony]

William, I'm sorry for you that your parents have passed on. However, the more I read your posts the more I understand just how skilful you are at deflecting points that you don't want to be raised and that Simpson has no answer for.

Not everyone has had the opportunity to live a successful life and their parents realize this. The rich always seem to provide for their heirs. Some are then able to make a living using what their parents left, Paris Hilton, to make them successful and will do like wise to their children. If being skillful is being logical, reasonable and truthful, while offering a reasonable alternative point of view, then, thank you and I will use this skill when I become a lawyer.

[William Anthony]

Ah William you are twisting again. I think I understand now why you so admire your so called 'great one' JC. I'd admire him more if he had defended an innocent man but he got Simpson off so he and his colleagues did their jobs.
However, you are studying law? Good for you. I did too when I 1st left high school. Changed my mind. Couldn't see myself lying to defend a guilty person.

This is the part of the post that I responded to.

"Secondly, his kids are almost 40, 38, almost 23 and almost 20. He doesn't *have* to support them at this point in their lives. *most* kids are supporting themselves by their ages."

There was no need to twist anything and no need for you to claim I did. Yes, his job was to defend Simpson, which is why they were hired. There are more types of law than criminal. That seems to be an overused excuse, imho, that they could not see defending a guilty person. There are very many prosecutors and lawyers that practice civil law.

[martin II]

William, I'm sorry for you that your parents have passed on. However, the more I read your posts the more I understand just how skilful you are at deflecting points that you don't want to be raised and that Simpson has no answer for.

From your post i can see that studying law may have been to exact or called for more organization and skill than you were able to offer.

[martin II]

OJs children by his previous marriage work and take care of themselves.

One of his children he had with Nicole in 3 year college student and the other is a 2 nd year college student.
You may be of the opinion of tossing them out on their own at 18 but obviously he is a more responsible and caring parent.

[SlowHandSam]

At what age of a child is it appropriate for a parent to feel that they have no obligation, legal and moral, to provide for their children? I know that my parents did all they could to provide for my and my sister's future and it did not stop, when we reached 18 or when we took on raising a family. Unfortunately, it stopped with their deaths and we were the beneficiaries of their estate. So, I guess you can say it continued after their deaths.

Twist twist twist. My back already hurts so let us not twist anymore.

Children with the ages of 40, 38 etc ... do not need to be "supported" financially by their parents. Or, at least, they should not be unless they are in a mental capacity that is deficient and prevents them from earning a living.

Of course most parents do everything they can do to support and provide for their children. My parents worked hard to support us when we were kids and even as adults stepped in when we needed it. However, I was supporting myself by age 21 and received "help" from my parents as needed. I think it would have been inappropriate and lazy had I expected them to support me after I got out of college. I know that I could go to them if I was in a bind now and they would do all they could to help me or my sibling. That doesn't translate to "supporting" us financially.

Just as I will do everything to provide for my son. However, that said, I can assure you that we have no plans of being his bank when he reaches the age of majority or graduates from college. Regardless of how much money one makes or saves - we need to be teaching our children to be self sufficient and independent. We're raising a lazy society and it sickens me. IMO.

Now, back to this oj business. His plan to steal back all of this material crap has nothing to do with "supporting his children". He viewed it as "his stuff" (or was it the other word?) and he didn't want anyone to have it. Plain, simple, just like that.

He may want to leave assets and monies for his children when he passes on. Good for him. But then again, perhaps he should have thought thru ALL the consequences before he butchered to people. I'm just sayin'. :shrug:

[SlowHandSam]

OJs children by his previous marriage work and take care of themselves.

One of his children he had with Nicole in 3 year college student and the other is a 2 nd year college student.
You may be of the opinion of tossing them out on their own at 18 but obviously he is a more responsible and caring parent.

Nice little slam attempt but it didn't work.

Why can't his kids get jobs like 75% of college students? He doesn't *have* to support them entirely. He could subsidize ... like so many other parents.

Why can't oj get a JOB instead of stealing?

why can't those who claim to be in college/post secondary school spell basic words?

MOST people, who are not of the entitlement mentality, realize that we have to WORK to support our families. Those that steal, go to jail.

[martin II]

two thoughts on this .... he should have thought about supporting his kids and making a living before he butchered his ex-wife and Ronald.

Secondly, his kids are almost 40, 38, almost 23 and almost 20. He doesn't *have* to support them at this point in their lives. *most* kids are supporting themselves by their ages.

Question:
If you had two kids in college and you were responsible to them for their total up keep. Paying about $60,000 $70,000 a year just for tuition would you tell them "at 18, ready or not you are out of here" just so you could pay money to someone for a civil judgement for a crime you say you did not commit. Which would be more important to you. your childrens education or paying fred?

[martin II]

Nice little slam attempt but it didn't work.

Why can't his kids get jobs like 75% of college students? He doesn't *have* to support them entirely. He could subsidize ... like so many other parents.

Why can't oj get a JOB instead of stealing?

why can't those who claim to be in college/post secondary school spell basic words?

MOST people, who are not of the entitlement mentality, realize that we have to WORK to support our families. Those that steal, go to jail.

His girl in is a major Northeast college and his son is in a Major Florida college
so it is not just a claim.

Oj has a $25,000 income from one of his pension and he is retired. He has been effectively back balled from working in his previous profession.

Not everyone is as perfect as you may be.

It is always very easy for outsiders to instruct a parent about what their position should be concerning his/her kids but most know this is nonsense and out of bounds for outsiders.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Twist twist twist. My back already hurts so let us not twist anymore.

Children with the ages of 40, 38 etc ... do not need to be "supported" financially by their parents. Or, at least, they should not be unless they are in a mental capacity that is deficient and prevents them from earning a living.

Of course most parents do everything they can do to support and provide for their children. My parents worked hard to support us when we were kids and even as adults stepped in when we needed it. However, I was supporting myself by age 21 and received "help" from my parents as needed. I think it would have been inappropriate and lazy had I expected them to support me after I got out of college. I know that I could go to them if I was in a bind now and they would do all they could to help me or my sibling. That doesn't translate to "supporting" us financially.

Just as I will do everything to provide for my son. However, that said, I can assure you that we have no plans of being his bank when he reaches the age of majority or graduates from college. Regardless of how much money one makes or saves - we need to be teaching our children to be self sufficient and independent. We're raising a lazy society and it sickens me. IMO.

Now, back to this oj business. His plan to steal back all of this material crap has nothing to do with "supporting his children". He viewed it as "his stuff" (or was it the other word?) and he didn't want anyone to have it. Plain, simple, just like that.

He may want to leave assets and monies for his children when he passes on. Good for him. But then again, perhaps he should have thought thru ALL the consequences before he butchered to people. I'm just sayin'. :shrug:


I am not sure how many time i have to post it for you to get it but here goes.
Ojs two oldest children works in their own chosen career fields and support themselves. His youngest two are college student and doing well.
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .If you had two kids in college and you were responsible to them for their total up keep. . ."

so what about the money from their mother's estate? and their portion of the civil judgment? geez, sounds like Nicole's children would be alright if the murderer of their mother would have respected the law.

[Kate Sachel]

From your post i can see that studying law may have been to exact or called for more organization and skill than you were able to offer.

I hope to God that, after this post, I can now expect to see you cease in scolding others whose posts you find rude and to be personal attacks because it's clear that you cannot follow through with the same.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Question:
If you had two kids in college and you were responsible to them for their total up keep. Paying about $60,000 $70,000 a year just for tuition would you tell them "at 18, ready or not you are out of here" just so you could pay money to someone for a civil judgement for a crime you say you did not commit. Which would be more important to you. your childrens education or paying fred?

I believe they are called student loans martin, and the majority of Americans that attend college get them to pay the costs of tuition.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

At what age of a child is it appropriate for a parent to feel that they have no obligation, legal and moral, to provide for their children? I know that my parents did all they could to provide for my and my sister's future and it did not stop, when we reached 18 or when we took on raising a family. Unfortunately, it stopped with their deaths and we were the beneficiaries of their estate. So, I guess you can say it continued after their deaths.

I'm very sorry for the loss of your parents.

I do understand what you are saying, and I myself am a trust fund baby. I have money in a fund that will retire me tomorrow if I do so choose. But, I don't. I'm very happy and feel very secure in knowing that it is there and I realize that I am lucky in ways that many are not.

I am not so concerned with the fact that OJ still wants to support his children or wants them to have an easier lifestyle, I only take issue with people who seem to indicate that taking part in tasteless and tacky events like signing autographs at a slasher convention is the only way he is able to do that.

You've got the single mom with two young children who has no education and no means of support who dons her short skirt and hooks on the streets just for some dollars to put food in the mouths of those young children who have no other avenue but her to depend on for their livelihood. I understand why she hooks.

OJ isn't signing autographs at a slasher convention because his adult children don't have food to eat and I think we all know that much.

Kate

[martin II]

*Snipped*

so what about the money from their mother's estate? and their portion of the civil judgment? geez, sounds like Nicole's children would be alright if the murderer of their mother would have respected the law.

From what i have read ojs younger children will receive the benifits of NBS estate. So any money oj had given to the estate comes to the children and therefore makes his financial resopnsibilites for their edcation up keep much less When ever they are old enough to satisfy the terms of the estate.

I also think that if oj is able to pay for their education, that is a much better financial solution than student loans that will leave them in big time debt at college graduation. To suggest that he should strap his kids with four years of student loan repayment just to pay fred is silly at best.:cool:

[Kate Sachel]

From what i have read ojs younger children will receive the benifits of NBS estate. So any money oj had given to the estate comes to the children and therefore makes his financial resopnsibilites for their edcation up keep much less When ever they are old enough to satisfy the terms of the estate.

I also think that if oj is able to pay for their education, that is a much better financial solution than student loans that will leave them in big time debt at college graduation. To suggest that he should strap his kids with four years of student loan repayment just to pay fred is silly at best.:cool:

When OJ Simpson decided to kill Ronald Goldman, he took on a different responsibility. The responsibility for a life lost at his hand. A legal judgment ordered him to pay, he chose not to.

You know what I find silly? I find it silly to believe that he has his children's best interests at heart and then runs around continuing to do things that may result in being convicted of criminal charges in court. What tremendous good is he to his children behind bars?

But, to quote martin - :cool:

Kate

[William Anthony]

Twist twist twist. My back already hurts so let us not twist anymore.

Children with the ages of 40, 38 etc ... do not need to be "supported" financially by their parents. Or, at least, they should not be unless they are in a mental capacity that is deficient and prevents them from earning a living.

Of course most parents do everything they can do to support and provide for their children. My parents worked hard to support us when we were kids and even as adults stepped in when we needed it. However, I was supporting myself by age 21 and received "help" from my parents as needed. I think it would have been inappropriate and lazy had I expected them to support me after I got out of college. I know that I could go to them if I was in a bind now and they would do all they could to help me or my sibling. That doesn't translate to "supporting" us financially.

Just as I will do everything to provide for my son. However, that said, I can assure you that we have no plans of being his bank when he reaches the age of majority or graduates from college. Regardless of how much money one makes or saves - we need to be teaching our children to be self sufficient and independent. We're raising a lazy society and it sickens me. IMO.

Now, back to this oj business. His plan to steal back all of this material crap has nothing to do with "supporting his children". He viewed it as "his stuff" (or was it the other word?) and he didn't want anyone to have it. Plain, simple, just like that.

He may want to leave assets and monies for his children when he passes on. Good for him. But then again, perhaps he should have thought thru ALL the consequences before he butchered to people. I'm just sayin'. :shrug:

Allow me to begin at the end? There is no verdict which states that he killed anyone. I agree that he seemingly viewed it as his stuff, which negates the element of intent to commit a crime. If it was his stuff or he viewed it as his, then he had the right to sell it or bequeath it to his children, providing no one else had legal title to it.

Yes, I agree that a person should do everything they can to provide for their children and their posterity. This in no way means that an adult child should not be self sufficient. I do not think in America's capitalistic society you will find many that say that there is such a thing as enough money, especially when one considers passing things on to their future lineage.

As far as your back hurting, I am not a doctor but I think a little rest might help. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm very sorry for the loss of your parents.

I do understand what you are saying, and I myself am a trust fund baby. I have money in a fund that will retire me tomorrow if I do so choose. But, I don't. I'm very happy and feel very secure in knowing that it is there and I realize that I am lucky in ways that many are not.

I am not so concerned with the fact that OJ still wants to support his children or wants them to have an easier lifestyle, I only take issue with people who seem to indicate that taking part in tasteless and tacky events like signing autographs at a slasher convention is the only way he is able to do that.

You've got the single mom with two young children who has no education and no means of support who dons her short skirt and hooks on the streets just for some dollars to put food in the mouths of those young children who have no other avenue but her to depend on for their livelihood. I understand why she hooks.

OJ isn't signing autographs at a slasher convention because his adult children don't have food to eat and I think we all know that much.

Kate

Unfortunately, my parents estate was not enough for retirement. They worked hard and long (and might have voted for Hilary, :) and I appreciate what they were able to accumulate while providing for my sister and I. She was in school when my father passed and I was an adult. We were both adults when my mother passed. I look back at what they did with the utmost of affection and understand a parents need to provide for their children.

Does the father, who robs a store to feed his starving children, get the same understanding as the prostitute? There have been recent postings on the Howard Stern show. While the show itself may be tasteless, does this mean that Stern showed not be allowed to put the show on so that he can leave his children, if any, something of value?

[SlowHandSam]

I am not sure how many time i have to post it for you to get it but here goes.
Ojs two oldest children works in their own chosen career fields and support themselves. His youngest two are college student and doing well.
martin II

well seeing how I only posted my post one time and you replied multiple times ... tell me, Martin, just how many times do you need to tell me?

I have a life and a job and other things to do than to sit on this board all day waiting to nitpick, twist words and say outrageous comments, like some. *ahem*

You go on and on about raising the level but then you attack in THREE posts replying to a single post.

So, let me put it to you in words you can understand.

60-70K in tuition. Go to a public university. Get a grant, loan and/or a job. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he *only* makes 25K a month. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he is "black balled" (I corrected that spelling for you) from his former profession.

25K a month would pay for a nice home and utilities, cars and insurance for most people and leave cash left over for small splurges ... if he chose to live within his means. He chose to not do so - that again is no one's fault. He's taken on the entitlement mentality and well, too bad.

If, for some reason, my financial stability was reduced significantly while my son was in college and I was unable to provide the life he was use to - I would sit with him and explain what is going on and work on a plan. Change colleges, change apartments/dorms whatever, change cars ...

Just like Kate said - people make lives, happy lives, on far less. (I paraphrased what I took as her message so you don't need to tell me that it wasn't word for word what she said.)

The bottom line is that his children are grown and had he paid the monies he owes, the future financial well being of his children would be a MOOT point. So tell me again just how great he is and how he wants to take care of his kids' future?

[martin II]

well seeing how I only posted my post one time and you replied multiple times ... tell me, Martin, just how many times do you need to tell me?

I have a life and a job and other things to do than to sit on this board all day waiting to nitpick, twist words and say outrageous comments, like some. *ahem*

You go on and on about raising the level but then you attack in THREE posts replying to a single post.

So, let me put it to you in words you can understand.

60-70K in tuition. Go to a public university. Get a grant, loan and/or a job. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he *only* makes 25K a month. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he is "black balled" (I corrected that spelling for you) from his former profession.

25K a month would pay for a nice home and utilities, cars and insurance for most people and leave cash left over for small splurges ... if he chose to live within his means. He chose to not do so - that again is no one's fault. He's taken on the entitlement mentality and well, too bad.

If, for some reason, my financial stability was reduced significantly while my son was in college and I was unable to provide the life he was use to - I would sit with him and explain what is going on and work on a plan. Change colleges, change apartments/dorms whatever, change cars ...

Just like Kate said - people make lives, happy lives, on far less. (I paraphrased what I took as her message so you don't need to tell me that it wasn't word for word what she said.)

The bottom line is that his children are grown and had he paid the monies he owes, the future financial well being of his children would be a MOOT point. So tell me again just how great he is and how he wants to take care of his kids' future?

What you did with your kid has nothing to do with what oj does with his.
So far he has done well in his support and education of his kids.
Not sure he needs advice as to how he should arrange his finances just to pay fred.
Had the judgement been set at a reasonable amount and had fred accepted a negoiated settement when offered then the judgement could possible been paid. since it was not, he is now still attempting to collect something that is beyond payment and just collecting legal bill.:cool:

[William Anthony]

well seeing how I only posted my post one time and you replied multiple times ... tell me, Martin, just how many times do you need to tell me?

I have a life and a job and other things to do than to sit on this board all day waiting to nitpick, twist words and say outrageous comments, like some. *ahem*

You go on and on about raising the level but then you attack in THREE posts replying to a single post.

So, let me put it to you in words you can understand.

60-70K in tuition. Go to a public university. Get a grant, loan and/or a job. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he *only* makes 25K a month. It is absolutely no one's fault but oj's that he is "black balled" (I corrected that spelling for you) from his former profession.

25K a month would pay for a nice home and utilities, cars and insurance for most people and leave cash left over for small splurges ... if he chose to live within his means. He chose to not do so - that again is no one's fault. He's taken on the entitlement mentality and well, too bad.

If, for some reason, my financial stability was reduced significantly while my son was in college and I was unable to provide the life he was use to - I would sit with him and explain what is going on and work on a plan. Change colleges, change apartments/dorms whatever, change cars ...

Just like Kate said - people make lives, happy lives, on far less. (I paraphrased what I took as her message so you don't need to tell me that it wasn't word for word what she said.)

The bottom line is that his children are grown and had he paid the monies he owes, the future financial well being of his children would be a MOOT point. So tell me again just how great he is and how he wants to take care of his kids' future?

Thank you for reminding Martin and me that Black is assigned to Black Balled as another evil act. The fact that people live happy lives on less does not mean that others aren't allowed or should not be allowed to live on more. I have stated that I believe he should have paid the judgment but also that he should be allowed to take advantage of any laws in place to protect his assets. Every citizen should be equally entitled to the protections and the penalties the laws afford, imho. You seem to imply that those, who do not need to sacrifice, should be willing to sacrifice. That may be a noble undertaking but not necessarily a required one.

[William Anthony]

Thank you Kate. It's informative to be 'personally attacked' (Oh God I used the words) by a 3rd person to a conversation you're having with someone else. I don't bother replying to Martin. I just deleted my opinion of him - that would be descending to his childish level. I thought that I was on his ignore option or maybe I am and he just replies to other people's posts. :confused:

I see that you have a concept of the words personal attack and attacking people in third party responses. Did you forget that you attacked Martin and me in a post that you responded to me? You know the one in which you responded to me saying "your Martin". This is simply just a suggestion-if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[William Anthony]

Come on William. I think you're better than that post. I hope you are. You can't deal with my post from how long ago which was not a 'personal attack'. Deep breath. Not going into this. Let's get back on topic.

You were perfectly willing to go off topic to thank a poster for for a post ,which you believed was standing up for you, and to criticize another poster. However, when you are reminded of your personal off topic posts, you start screaming off topic. Mr. Bell, with all due respect, I reiterate-if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Thank you for saying that you think that I am better than that post. However, equality demands that I stand up for both sides. You, Mr. Bell started this and have not yet apologized and, in fact, stated that we should read the posts in other communities that are worse attacks than what goes on in this community, as if that in some manner excuses your posts in this community. I think that Martin will admit that he has been rude and engaged in personal attacks in the past and so have I. However, neither Martin nor I started with you. You began in the attack mode from your first posts on these threads. I know that you, Mr. Bell are better than that or I hope you are.

[William Anthony]

William get back on topic.

Take your get and get on.

[Kate Sachel]

Unfortunately, my parents estate was not enough for retirement. They worked hard and long (and might have voted for Hilary, :) and I appreciate what they were able to accumulate while providing for my sister and I. She was in school when my father passed and I was an adult. We were both adults when my mother passed. I look back at what they did with the utmost of affection and understand a parents need to provide for their children.

Does the father, who robs a store to feed his starving children, get the same understanding as the prostitute? There have been recent postings on the Howard Stern show. While the show itself may be tasteless, does this mean that Stern showed not be allowed to put the show on so that he can leave his children, if any, something of value?

It's a great feeling to be able to look at your parents with such affection and you are quite lucky to be able to do that. I feel the same about my father, who was an extremely wealthy man yet made certain that I grew up understanding that my life was very privleged and insisted that I learn the value of a dollar and the value of a solid work ethic.

There are differences between robbing from another and selling your own body to provide, though I do understand the man who robs the store to feed his starving children as long as he doesn't hurt anyone in the process.

William, there are major differences in the Howard Stern doing his show and OJ Simpson signing autographs at a slasher convention. He stood accused of murdering two beings, and though aquitted, one of those victims was his ex-wife and the mother of his children and it is disrespectful. Howard Stern's show does not mock or disrespect murder victims.

Kate

[tv]

Unfortunately, my parents estate was not enough for retirement. They worked hard and long (and might have voted for Hilary, :) and I appreciate what they were able to accumulate while providing for my sister and I. She was in school when my father passed and I was an adult. We were both adults when my mother passed. I look back at what they did with the utmost of affection and understand a parents need to provide for their children.

Does the father, who robs a store to feed his starving children, get the same understanding as the prostitute? There have been recent postings on the Howard Stern show. While the show itself may be tasteless, does this mean that Stern showed not be allowed to put the show on so that he can leave his children, if any, something of value?
Willliam, I defend Howard Stern's right to have his show but I also defend my right to say it's tasteless.

[William Anthony]

It's a great feeling to be able to look at your parents with such affection and you are quite lucky to be able to do that. I feel the same about my father, who was an extremely wealthy man yet made certain that I grew up understanding that my life was very privleged and insisted that I learn the value of a dollar and the value of a solid work ethic.

There are differences between robbing from another and selling your own body to provide, though I do understand the man who robs the store to feed his starving children as long as he doesn't hurt anyone in the process.

William, there are major differences in the Howard Stern doing his show and OJ Simpson signing autographs at a slasher convention. He stood accused of murdering two beings, and though aquitted, one of those victims was his ex-wife and the mother of his children and it is disrespectful. Howard Stern's show does not mock or disrespect murder victims.

Kate

Howard Stern holds nothing sacred on his show. The prostitute and the thief are both lawbreakers, with mitigating circumstances.

[William Anthony]

Willliam, I defend Howard Stern's right to have his show but I also defend my right to say it's tasteless.


Tasteless or not, people act in ways we do not condone to provide as best as possible for their loved ones, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

Howard Stern holds nothing sacred on his show. The prostitute and the thief are both lawbreakers, with mitigating circumstances.

The prostitute is not a law breaker everywhere William.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Howard Stern holds nothing sacred on his show. The prostitute and the thief are both lawbreakers, with mitigating circumstances.

Can you give me examples of times Howard Stern has mocked or disrespected murder victims on his show?

Kate

[weezer]

Thank you for reminding Martin and me that Black is assigned to Black Balled as another evil act. The fact that people live happy lives on less does not mean that others aren't allowed or should not be allowed to live on more. I have stated that I believe he should have paid the judgment but also that he should be allowed to take advantage of any laws in place to protect his assets. Every citizen should be equally entitled to the protections and the penalties the laws afford, imho. You seem to imply that those, who do not need to sacrifice, should be willing to sacrifice. That may be a noble undertaking but not necessarily a required one.

I think you and martin have really gotten carried away on this "I'm a victim 'cause. . . ." only the two of you -- as far as I can tell -- have equated black and white with race. You may find this hard to believe but it ain't all about you.

[martin II]

I think you and martin have really gotten carried away on this "I'm a victim 'cause. . . ." only the two of you -- as far as I can tell -- have equated black and white with race. You may find this hard to believe but it ain't all about you.

Weezer

You claim the jury members were Democrats as if this had something to do with the verdict. Can you explain how being a DEMOCRAT effected the verdict?

[weezer]

Weezer

You claim the jury members were Democrats as if this had something to do with the verdict. Can you explain how being a DEMOCRAT effected the verdict?

martin -- I don't 'claim' squat. I posted a portion of an article -- which BTW was quoted on tv last night on Final Report.

[William Anthony]

The prostitute is not a law breaker everywhere William.

Kate

Let me answer your and Mr. Bell posts in one response, since he seems to rely on you so dearly. I thought we were discussing American law and you post said dons her skirt and hits the street. I do not know anywhere in America where street walking prostitution is legal. However, I may be wrong.

[William Anthony]

I think you and martin have really gotten carried away on this "I'm a victim 'cause. . . ." only the two of you -- as far as I can tell -- have equated black and white with race. You may find this hard to believe but it ain't all about you.

Perhaps, you need to do more reading by Black authors, who are of the opinion that White represents good and Black evil.

[weezer]

Perhaps, you need to do more reading by Black authors, who are of the opinion that White represents good and Black evil.

like I said, "It ain't all about you"

[martin II]

like I said, "It ain't all about you"

MY posting on this thread does not mean anything is about me no more than it means it is about you when you post.It is about oj and the current case in vegas and other subjects as they come up.

[weezer]

O.J.: Anybody else wouldn't be going to court
By KEN RITTER – 1 day ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson says an ambitious Nevada prosecutor is pressing a kidnapping and armed robbery case against him that he says even the alleged victims don't want to pursue.

"If I was anybody else, I wouldn't be going to court," Simpson told a reporter for Fargo, N.D., radio station KFGO who interviewed him late Tuesday at a Fargo cigar bar. Simpson was vacationing in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.

"How many trials have you ever heard of where both of the victims say they don't want this guy to go to jail, they don't want to go to court, and you still go to court?" Simpson asked. "It's only me.

"But unfortunately for me," Simpson said, "I got like a bull's eye on my front, dollar sign on my back, you get involved with people who want to be governor and stuff."

Clark County District Attorney David Roger declined comment.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Thursday that Simpson was venting his frustration about facing trial Sept. 8 in Las Vegas on charges carrying the possibility of prison time.

"I think O.J.'s comments show how totally frustrated he is over this incident that involves family heirlooms that were stolen from him by some very nefarious characters," Galanter said.

Galanter also downplayed Simpson's comments about the prosecutor, saying that he had the "utmost respect" for Roger and another prosecutor in the case, Chris Owens.

"I have no reason to believe their motives in this case have been anything less than ethical and honorable," Galanter said.

Simpson and two co-defendants, Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart, have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon charges stemming from allegations they robbed two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room last September. Simpson has denied any guns were involved.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. An armed robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

(This version CORRECTS that cigar bar was in Fargo.)

[martin II]

O.J.: Anybody else wouldn't be going to court
By KEN RITTER – 1 day ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson says an ambitious Nevada prosecutor is pressing a kidnapping and armed robbery case against him that he says even the alleged victims don't want to pursue.

"If I was anybody else, I wouldn't be going to court," Simpson told a reporter for Fargo, N.D., radio station KFGO who interviewed him late Tuesday at a Fargo cigar bar. Simpson was vacationing in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.

"How many trials have you ever heard of where both of the victims say they don't want this guy to go to jail, they don't want to go to court, and you still go to court?" Simpson asked. "It's only me.

"But unfortunately for me," Simpson said, "I got like a bull's eye on my front, dollar sign on my back, you get involved with people who want to be governor and stuff."

Clark County District Attorney David Roger declined comment.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Thursday that Simpson was venting his frustration about facing trial Sept. 8 in Las Vegas on charges carrying the possibility of prison time.

"I think O.J.'s comments show how totally frustrated he is over this incident that involves family heirlooms that were stolen from him by some very nefarious characters," Galanter said.

Galanter also downplayed Simpson's comments about the prosecutor, saying that he had the "utmost respect" for Roger and another prosecutor in the case, Chris Owens.

"I have no reason to believe their motives in this case have been anything less than ethical and honorable," Galanter said.

Simpson and two co-defendants, Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart, have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon charges stemming from allegations they robbed two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room last September. Simpson has denied any guns were involved.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. An armed robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

(This version CORRECTS that cigar bar was in Fargo.)

i read this a few days ago. i am having difficulty understanding how kidnapping will stick.

[martin II]

I wonder if every robber in vegas is charged as oj is charged.If so ,that criminal court docket must be years behind.

[martin II]

O.J.: Anybody else wouldn't be going to court
By KEN RITTER – 1 day ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson says an ambitious Nevada prosecutor is pressing a kidnapping and armed robbery case against him that he says even the alleged victims don't want to pursue.

"If I was anybody else, I wouldn't be going to court," Simpson told a reporter for Fargo, N.D., radio station KFGO who interviewed him late Tuesday at a Fargo cigar bar. Simpson was vacationing in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.

"How many trials have you ever heard of where both of the victims say they don't want this guy to go to jail, they don't want to go to court, and you still go to court?" Simpson asked. "It's only me.

"But unfortunately for me," Simpson said, "I got like a bull's eye on my front, dollar sign on my back, you get involved with people who want to be governor and stuff."

Clark County District Attorney David Roger declined comment.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Thursday that Simpson was venting his frustration about facing trial Sept. 8 in Las Vegas on charges carrying the possibility of prison time.

"I think O.J.'s comments show how totally frustrated he is over this incident that involves family heirlooms that were stolen from him by some very nefarious characters," Galanter said.

Galanter also downplayed Simpson's comments about the prosecutor, saying that he had the "utmost respect" for Roger and another prosecutor in the case, Chris Owens.

"I have no reason to believe their motives in this case have been anything less than ethical and honorable," Galanter said.

Simpson and two co-defendants, Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart, have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon charges stemming from allegations they robbed two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room last September. Simpson has denied any guns were involved.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. An armed robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

(This version CORRECTS that cigar bar was in Fargo.)


The odd thing about this case is that the two that admitted they brought guns into the hotel room and pulled them out have not been charged. those that did not have guns are charged with Armed robbery.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

like I said, "It ain't all about you"

With all due respect, what started the conversation was a comment by the hero of some, VB, that stated Simpson did not know how to be Black (paraphrasing), as if VB did. The conversation then turned to a discussion of how dark Simpson was depicted in the media despite his actual skin pigmentation. A natural thread from that ball of twine involved how the color of Black has been depicted. Correct, it is not about me but about all Black Americans and several authors have written on those observations.

[weezer]

With all due respect, what started the conversation was a comment by the hero of some, VB, that stated Simpson did not know how to be Black (paraphrasing), as if VB did. The conversation then turned to a discussion of how dark Simpson was depicted in the media despite his actual skin pigmentation. A natural thread from that ball of twine involved how the color of Black has been depicted. Correct, it is not about me but about all Black Americans and several authors have written on those observations.

with all due respet, you were the one to take the topic to the picture and you and martin were the only ones posting about black being bad. I will say again, it ain't all about you.

[William Anthony]

Can you give me examples of times Howard Stern has mocked or disrespected murder victims on his show?

Kate

Here is a link, which will answer your request.

http://ezineblog.org/virginia-tech/penn-state-students-dress-as-virginia-tech-victims-for-halloween-costume/

[tv]

with all due respet, you were the one to take the topic to the picture and you and martin were the only ones posting about black being bad. I will say again, it ain't all about you.
Weezer, they have to make it all about being black, if not then OJ Simpson has NO defense. I refuse to take part in this black/white = bad/good BS. It has nothing to do with what happened in Vegas. It's just another smoke screen to make it look like OJ Simpson is being persecuted for being black. It doesn't matter how many times that idea is put out there -- no one dragged him to that hotel room and made him do and say the things he did -- he did all that on his own.

[William Anthony]

Weezer, they have to make it all about being black, if not then OJ Simpson has NO defense. I refuse to take part in this black/white = bad/good BS. It has nothing to do with what happened in Vegas. It's just another smoke screen to make it look like OJ Simpson is being persecuted for being black. It doesn't matter how many times that idea is put out there -- no one dragged him to that hotel room and made him do and say the things he did -- he did all that on his own.

Let me answer your and fbgweezer's post in one? VB's comment about Simpson not being Black was posted on another thread. This conversation started when a poster mentioned Black Balled. That reminded me of another use of the word black to equate black with evil. This has nothing to do with the magnificent defense the dream team presented nor to excuse any behavior that Simpson has been charged. The fact that he was allegedly black balled and his belief that the stuff was his may play a crucial part in the defense of his charges. I think that his mindset, if he is truly innocent and the subsequent civil verdict or if he truly believed that LE framed him even if he is guilty, would help to explain his conduct in Vegas. The dream team put on an excellent defense, imho. The civil defense did the best it could with the evidence that was allowed to be presented, imho. It remains to be seen how the defense will be in the upcoming trial.

[martin II]

Weezer, they have to make it all about being black, if not then OJ Simpson has NO defense. I refuse to take part in this black/white = bad/good BS. It has nothing to do with what happened in Vegas. It's just another smoke screen to make it look like OJ Simpson is being persecuted for being black. It doesn't matter how many times that idea is put out there -- no one dragged him to that hotel room and made him do and say the things he did -- he did all that on his own.

When you or anyone say the jury voted not guilty to take care of one of their own you make it about color.When one says the jury was biased you make it about color. When one says the black male juror member gave oj the panther salute you make it about color.

[weezer]

When you or anyone say the jury voted not guilty to take care of one of their own you make it about color.When one says the jury was biased you make it about color. When one says the black male juror member gave oj the panther salute you make it about color.

the juror did said 'we take care of our own' and the juror did acknowledge orenthal with the 'panther salute' -- so, martin, the jury did make it about color. The rest of us thought it was a murder trial.

[martin II]

the juror did said 'we take care of our own' and the juror did acknowledge orenthal with the 'panther salute' -- so, martin, the jury did make it about color. The rest of us thought it was a murder trial.

That may be because of what you preceive the gesture to have been about AND your preseption of what a panther salute meant at the time of the trial.

It was a trial about Murder and not abuse or salutes/Gestures.

[martin II]

the juror did said 'we take care of our own' and the juror did acknowledge orenthal with the 'panther salute' -- so, martin, the jury did make it about color. The rest of us thought it was a murder trial.

The prosecution made the trial about race when they put Darden at their table in a effort to have the jury identify with him at lease that was the opinion of one juror and guess what it did not work as they held Darden to the same standard of proof as Clarke.We know both failed to prove their case.

[weezer]

The prosecution made the trial about race when they put Darden at their table in a effort to have the jury identify with him at lease that was the opinion of one juror and guess what it did not work as they held Darden to the same standard of proof as Clarke.We know both failed to prove their case.

the prosecution proved their case to the majority of America and the world. unfortunately, there is a segment that continue to disbelieve even orenthal's statements that incriminate him.

at any rate, orenthal's not guilty in the criminal trial has nothing to do with his vegas armed robbery -- so guess if we want to talk criminal trial, we should go to that thread.

[martin II]

QUOTE=fbgweezer;9105626]the prosecution proved their case to the majority of America and the world. unfortunately, there is a segment that continue to disbelieve even orenthal's statements that incriminate him.

at any rate, orenthal's not guilty in the criminal trial has nothing to do with his vegas armed robbery -- so guess if we want to talk criminal trial, we should go to that thread.[/QUOTE]


Weezer
The american population is very small compared to the world polulation.So i am not sure your statement about the world beleived he was guilty is correct. That statement may fall into the catogory of your opinion than fact.

We will have to wait to see if the vegas trial which some have predicted will end in a guilty verdict will actually be that or will it be like the criminal trial that all knew he would be found guilty and it then ended up not guilty.:cool:

[William Anthony]

with all due respet, you were the one to take the topic to the picture and you and martin were the only ones posting about black being bad. I will say again, it ain't all about you.

And I can also reiterate.

With all due respect, what started the conversation was a comment by the hero of some, VB, that stated Simpson did not know how to be Black (paraphrasing), as if VB did. The conversation then turned to a discussion of how dark Simpson was depicted in the media despite his actual skin pigmentation. A natural thread from that ball of twine involved how the color of Black has been depicted. Correct, it is not about me but about all Black Americans and several authors have written on those observations.

[weezer]

And I can also reiterate.

With all due respect, what started the conversation was a comment by the hero of some, VB, that stated Simpson did not know how to be Black (paraphrasing), as if VB did. The conversation then turned to a discussion of how dark Simpson was depicted in the media despite his actual skin pigmentation. A natural thread from that ball of twine involved how the color of Black has been depicted. Correct, it is not about me but about all Black Americans and several authors have written on those observations.

OMG -- orenthal james simpson murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman isn't about black americans and/or how they are depicted. Give it a rest for God's sake!

[William Anthony]

OMG -- orenthal james simpson murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman isn't about black americans and/or how they are depicted. Give it a rest for God's sake!

I was not the poster who posted VB's comment. If his race had nothing to do with it, then why post it?

[martin II]

The topic of the pictures being removed was first posted here by a poster that you claim is from YOUR SIDE of the issue.

[William Anthony]

OMG -- orenthal james simpson murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman isn't about black americans and/or how they are depicted. Give it a rest for God's sake!

Have you resigned your position in the court of public opinion?

[weezer]

"Wanna Bet?

Well, the bookies in Las Vegas have placed OJ Simpson accepting a plea deal bargain as a -140 favorite. The odds increase with each of the other accused of helping OJ in an armed robbery pleading guilty. Odds for OJ testifying on behalf of himself are listed as a +205 underdog.

Charges have been reduced for three of the five other men who confronted collectibles dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong along with the Hall of Famer OJ Simpson in an armed robbery at a Las Vegas hotel on September 13, 2007. Walter Alexander, Charles Cashmore and Michael McClinton have all agreed to testify against the former football player in order to reduce sentences against them.

Prosecutors are banking on six of the nine people involved and present in the tiny hotel room during the Sept 13 incident to testify against the ex-football star. Included are the two alleged victims, three of the former co-defendants and a collectibles broker who arranged the meeting.

Michael McClinton, 49 of Las Vegas, will testify that OJ asked him to bring guns to the confrontation in exchange for probation or up to 11 years in prison.

Walter Alexander, 46 of Mesa Arizona, told police McClinton gave a gun to him, but he never brandished the weapon. Pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, OJ’s golfing buddy could face up to six years in prison or probation.

Charles Cashmore, 40 of Las Vegas pleaded guilty to felony accessory to robbery at the Palace Station, an off strip hotel and casino. Cashmore could face up to five years in prison or possible probation in exchange for his testimony.

A hearing set for November 8 will allow Judge Bonaventure to determine what the evidence is and if co-defendants Charles Ehrlich, Clarence Stewart and OJ Simpson should go to trial. Each of the defendants is faced with twelve (12) criminal charges.

The ‘slick’ OJ Simpson who was acquitted of murder charges stemming from the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994 could now find charges sticking and landing the threesome in jail for life. Kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with deadly weapon, coercion and conspiracy are among the charges the prosecutors intend to prove.

Though six of the eight men with Simpson that Sept 13 night have had run-ins with the law before, with convictions of theft, trafficking drugs, stalking, domestic violence, assault with deadly weapon, grand larceny and arson; their credibility matters little in the preliminary hearing where the only decision is “whether there is enough evidence for reasonable minds to differ on whether the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Police report that among the items taken during the robbery include; autographed footballs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, Photos of OJ with the Heisman Trophy, framed awards, plaques, and a Joe Montana lithographs valued over $100,000 according to authorities."

[William Anthony]

"Wanna Bet?

Well, the bookies in Las Vegas have placed OJ Simpson accepting a plea deal bargain as a -140 favorite. The odds increase with each of the other accused of helping OJ in an armed robbery pleading guilty. Odds for OJ testifying on behalf of himself are listed as a +205 underdog.

Charges have been reduced for three of the five other men who confronted collectibles dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong along with the Hall of Famer OJ Simpson in an armed robbery at a Las Vegas hotel on September 13, 2007. Walter Alexander, Charles Cashmore and Michael McClinton have all agreed to testify against the former football player in order to reduce sentences against them.

Prosecutors are banking on six of the nine people involved and present in the tiny hotel room during the Sept 13 incident to testify against the ex-football star. Included are the two alleged victims, three of the former co-defendants and a collectibles broker who arranged the meeting.

Michael McClinton, 49 of Las Vegas, will testify that OJ asked him to bring guns to the confrontation in exchange for probation or up to 11 years in prison.

Walter Alexander, 46 of Mesa Arizona, told police McClinton gave a gun to him, but he never brandished the weapon. Pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, OJ’s golfing buddy could face up to six years in prison or probation.

Charles Cashmore, 40 of Las Vegas pleaded guilty to felony accessory to robbery at the Palace Station, an off strip hotel and casino. Cashmore could face up to five years in prison or possible probation in exchange for his testimony.

A hearing set for November 8 will allow Judge Bonaventure to determine what the evidence is and if co-defendants Charles Ehrlich, Clarence Stewart and OJ Simpson should go to trial. Each of the defendants is faced with twelve (12) criminal charges.

The ‘slick’ OJ Simpson who was acquitted of murder charges stemming from the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994 could now find charges sticking and landing the threesome in jail for life. Kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with deadly weapon, coercion and conspiracy are among the charges the prosecutors intend to prove.

Though six of the eight men with Simpson that Sept 13 night have had run-ins with the law before, with convictions of theft, trafficking drugs, stalking, domestic violence, assault with deadly weapon, grand larceny and arson; their credibility matters little in the preliminary hearing where the only decision is “whether there is enough evidence for reasonable minds to differ on whether the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Police report that among the items taken during the robbery include; autographed footballs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, Photos of OJ with the Heisman Trophy, framed awards, plaques, and a Joe Montana lithographs valued over $100,000 according to authorities."

Please, provide the date of the article?

[martin II]

"Wanna Bet?

Well, the bookies in Las Vegas have placed OJ Simpson accepting a plea deal bargain as a -140 favorite. The odds increase with each of the other accused of helping OJ in an armed robbery pleading guilty. Odds for OJ testifying on behalf of himself are listed as a +205 underdog.

Charges have been reduced for three of the five other men who confronted collectibles dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong along with the Hall of Famer OJ Simpson in an armed robbery at a Las Vegas hotel on September 13, 2007. Walter Alexander, Charles Cashmore and Michael McClinton have all agreed to testify against the former football player in order to reduce sentences against them.

Prosecutors are banking on six of the nine people involved and present in the tiny hotel room during the Sept 13 incident to testify against the ex-football star. Included are the two alleged victims, three of the former co-defendants and a collectibles broker who arranged the meeting.

Michael McClinton, 49 of Las Vegas, will testify that OJ asked him to bring guns to the confrontation in exchange for probation or up to 11 years in prison.

Walter Alexander, 46 of Mesa Arizona, told police McClinton gave a gun to him, but he never brandished the weapon. Pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, OJ’s golfing buddy could face up to six years in prison or probation.

Charles Cashmore, 40 of Las Vegas pleaded guilty to felony accessory to robbery at the Palace Station, an off strip hotel and casino. Cashmore could face up to five years in prison or possible probation in exchange for his testimony.

A hearing set for November 8 will allow Judge Bonaventure to determine what the evidence is and if co-defendants Charles Ehrlich, Clarence Stewart and OJ Simpson should go to trial. Each of the defendants is faced with twelve (12) criminal charges.

The ‘slick’ OJ Simpson who was acquitted of murder charges stemming from the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994 could now find charges sticking and landing the threesome in jail for life. Kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with deadly weapon, coercion and conspiracy are among the charges the prosecutors intend to prove.

Though six of the eight men with Simpson that Sept 13 night have had run-ins with the law before, with convictions of theft, trafficking drugs, stalking, domestic violence, assault with deadly weapon, grand larceny and arson; their credibility matters little in the preliminary hearing where the only decision is “whether there is enough evidence for reasonable minds to differ on whether the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Police report that among the items taken during the robbery include; autographed footballs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, Photos of OJ with the Heisman Trophy, framed awards, plaques, and a Joe Montana lithographs valued over $100,000 according to authorities."

OLD OLD OLD OLD ARTICLE.

[Kate Sachel]

OLD OLD OLD OLD ARTICLE.

Well, how OLD OLD OLD OLD is it?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I was going to ask that too. Well, Martin? Just how old is old?

How old was Martin's post going to be before you were going to ask? I suspect that it would have died of old age waiting for you to ask the question, if Kate hadn't. You remind me of a cousin I have. When his parents asked him to do something, his standard reply was I was just getting ready to do that. He did not fool me or his parents.:)

[William Anthony]

Not worthy William. I deleted my reply at the time because I decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble. :seeya:

Still only one thing right, imho, Mr. Bell. If your post had been deleted at the time, I could not have responded to it and I responded to probably four posts on another thread before responding to your post.

[martin II]

Not worthy William. I deleted my reply at the time because I decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble. :seeya:

bell
Most posters that are informed about the case know when the hearing was held and therefore how old that report was.See how that works.:cool:

[martin II]

Not worthy William. I deleted my reply at the time because I decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble. :seeya:

bell
I don't see where you deleted any post.
But
I am waiting for you to inform us how the oj trial effected Australians and in particular those blacks you spoke of.

[SlowHandSam]

what difference does it make if he deleted or typed it up and then canceled the post? I do that often when I realize it just isn't worth it.

I don't see why you are trying to stir up crap today.

You choose to not answer posts all the time, if Mr. Bell chooses to not answer, that's his call, not yours. This badgering and bullying needs to stop.

[martin II]

what difference does it make if he deleted or typed it up and then canceled the post? I do that often when I realize it just isn't worth it.

I don't see why you are trying to stir up crap today.

You choose to not answer posts all the time, if Mr. Bell chooses to not answer, that's his call, not yours. This badgering and bullying needs to stop.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.

[martin II]

what difference does it make if he deleted or typed it up and then canceled the post? I do that often when I realize it just isn't worth it.

I don't see why you are trying to stir up crap today.

You choose to not answer posts all the time, if Mr. Bell chooses to not answer, that's his call, not yours. This badgering and bullying needs to stop.

i dissagree with your claim and what you call badgering and bullying. So will leave you with your claim.:seeya:

[One2Snoop]

Back to bidness - Whats the latest on OJ? Anyone?

[One2Snoop]

You all need to stop this stupid bickering and move on. Please keep in mind and consider those who still read your posts everyday but choose not to post. I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just thought you should know.

[William Anthony]

You all need to stop this stupid bickering and move on. Please keep in mind and consider those who still read your posts everyday but choose not to post. I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just thought you should know.

Please, do not become unwilling to post because of the actions of some on this board. I think that we (regular posters) are in need of more posts from posters, who desire to discuss the issues in a civil, polite, respectful and informative manner, as opposed to posters, who begin with attacks, keep posting the posts of others (one of whom had the unmitigated audacity to say that he did not respect another poster) and seeking opinions of others on other poster's posts, people who engage in name calling, and people who make snide remarks but when questioned about them do not want to defend their posts. There was a brief period recently when that was not the case. Unfortunately, the bells began to toll again. I have read some of your posts on other threads and find that you are not the type of poster that I have mentioned in this post. So, I would like to say that I would be glad to see you posting here.

[martin II]

William. It's sweet how you replied to this poster. It would be even sweeter and much more polite if you responded to all other posters with the same amount of consideration. :)

Bell

I have seen nothing in your post by attacks, name calling and efforts to cause confusion. Your first post on these threads included name calling which i assume is your way of expressing yourself.
There is much information on these issues and i see no reason why you
have not been able to post on it rather than these constant negative comments to william and myself without any foundation at all.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

You all need to stop this stupid bickering and move on. Please keep in mind and consider those who still read your posts everyday but choose not to post. I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just thought you should know.

Thanks

[martin II]

Martin. I'm prepared to meet you face to face. You bring your cello, I'll bring my piano and let's see what kind of music we make. If we don't like it then we can delete it.:D

If i understand the intent of your post i doubt that is what you really wish for.
We make music around here all the time. You are invited. So bring whatever you have.:cool:

[martin II]

Back to bidness - Whats the latest on OJ? Anyone?

The latest that i know is there are some defense motions before the judge that have not been ruled on as yet.It seems that everything is in some kind of holding pattern until September.I believe.
martin II

[William Anthony]

William. It's sweet how you replied to this poster. It would be even sweeter and much more polite if you responded to all other posters with the same amount of consideration. :)

With all due respect Mr. Bell, there is no requirement that I respond to any poster in any manner, other than a manner that is not against the rules. When a poster begins from the start with personal attacks and name calling and offers nothing but posts from another poster, who has stated that he has no respect for me, and adds little information to a discussion, or when posters use posts that are racially insensitive and refuse to follow respectful requests, make false accusations and do not participate in an effort to raise the level of posting on this board, I think that the only way to respond is in a manner informing the poster of their abusive posts and my demand to be respected. I have tried to make this a better community and have been met with what I believe to be scorn and ridicule. If you will recall, I did not respond in a negative manner to you until you continued posting negative comments and called me names. I give a poster the benefit of doubt until the poster shows he or she does not want that by continuing to post the aforementioned type of posts despite my requests. Thanks, yes some posters make it easy for me to respond in a civil manner and I wish all posters did.

[William Anthony]

If i understand the intent of your post i doubt that is what you really wish for.
We make music around here all the time. You are invited. So bring whatever you have.:cool:

I think I understood the intent of his post and it appears to be a threat. You handled it well. I appreciate music and loath noise. I think, if the two of you meet with those objects, judging from Mr. Bell's posts, there would be much noise an no music. With all due respect to Mr. Bell this is not the forum to put in applications to start a symphony or anything else other than a civil, polite and respectful discussion of the Simpson cases.

[tv]

Bell

I have seen nothing in your post by attacks, name calling and efforts to cause confusion. Your first post on these threads included name calling which i assume is your way of expressing yourself.
There is much information on these issues and i see no reason why you
have not been able to post on it rather than these constant negative comments to william and myself without any foundation at all.

imo
martin II

Out of curiosity I checked. Joseph Bell did not come to this forum with any name calling or efforts to cause confusion, whatever you mean by that. Who did he call names when he first came to these threads?

Here is his first post from 3/14. Where is the name calling? Someone that didn't know better might have believed your false claim.

Hi.

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

Cheers

[William Anthony]

Out of curiosity I checked. Joseph Bell did not come to this forum with any name calling or efforts to cause confusion, whatever you mean by that. Who did he call names when he first came to these threads?

Here is his first post from 3/14. Where is the name calling? Someone that didn't know better might have believed your false claim.

Hi.

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

Cheers

With all due respect, I think that all of us make mistakes in grammar or typing. I think the post was meant to express his first few posts as he did not intend to limit it to one thread or one post and should have typed your first posts on these threads, as opposed to the first post on these threads. I think that, if you do some further research, you will find that the posts became, rude, offensive, impolite, baiting, included name calling and personal attacks. Now, with that said, I have not recently seen the same type of posts from this particular poster. His latter post seem to indicate a desire from those poster, whom he believes to be more knowledgeable posters to find some agreement from them in the statements of other posters. I find no problem with this tactic but I do wish the poster would let me know his personal opinion on substantive issues, other than his opinion of the participants and the media. If those are the only opinions this poster has formed, then I wish he would so state.

[tv]

With all due respect, I think that all of us make mistakes in grammar or typing. I think the post was meant to express his first few posts as he did not intend to limit it to one thread or one post and should have typed your first posts on these threads, as opposed to the first post on these threads. I think that, if you do some further research, you will find that the posts became, rude, offensive, impolite, baiting, included name calling and personal attacks. Now, with that said, I have not recently seen the same type of posts from this particular poster. His latter post seem to indicate a desire from those poster, whom he believes to be more knowledgeable posters to find some agreement from them in the statements of other posters. I find no problem with this tactic but I do wish the poster would let me know his personal opinion on substantive issues, other than his opinion of the participants and the media. If those are the only opinions this poster has formed, then I wish he would so state.William Anthony, please give me credit for having a few more brain cells than an imbecile. I checked more than the first post by Joseph Bell.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, please give me credit for having a few more brain cells than an imbecile. I checked more than the first post by Joseph Bell.

Please, do not take offense where none is intended? You only posted his first post on these threads, if I am correct. IIRC, his first post on the 9/10 thread was a desire to dismantle the thread, which another poster started and posters were engaged in discussions and to start a thread of Simpson is innocent or guilty, which was respectfully met with opposition. It seemed that shortly thereafter the unprovoked name calling and personal attacks against Martin and Me began. I think the issue has resolved itself and I think we can get back on topic.

[tv]

Please, do not take offense where none is intended? You only posted his first post on these threads, if I am correct. IIRC, his first post on the 9/10 thread was a desire to dismantle the thread, which another poster started and posters were engaged in discussions and to start a thread of Simpson is innocent or guilty, which was respectfully met with opposition. It seemed that shortly thereafter the unprovoked name calling and personal attacks against Martin and Me began. I think the issue has resolved itself and I think we can get back on topic.

I haven't finished looking at all the posts but I'm up to June 5th and haven't found one where he calls you or Martin a name. Would you happen to have a key word I can search? It would make it a lot easier for me. I'm interested in reading how the communications between you, Martin and Joseph Bell degenerated into such animosity.

[William Anthony]

I haven't finished looking at all the posts but I'm up to June 5th and haven't found one where he calls you or Martin a name. Would you happen to have a key word I can search? It would make it a lot easier for me. I'm interested in reading how the communications between you, Martin and Joseph Bell degenerated into such animosity.

Try martin and William and specifically your martin and sweetie, although we have had these discussions on the inappropriate and offensive remarks and the situation seemed to resolve itself.

[tv]

Try martin and William and specifically your martin and sweetie, although we have had these discussions on the inappropriate and offensive remarks and the situation seemed to resolve itself.
That's what you're calling name calling? I thought you were talking about real name calling. Thanks for saving me a lot of trouble. You're right, this is all resolved. Let's get back on topic. Geez.

[William Anthony]

That's what you're calling name calling? I thought you were talking about real name calling. Thanks for saving me a lot of trouble. You're right, this is all resolved. Let's get back on topic. Geez.

Yeah that's some of it. You know what is interesting is when I mistakenly typed Bella and there were protest about that but none when he referred to Martin as "your martin" in a post to me and there were no protests, other than from martin and me, about it. However, I agree we should stay on topic.

[tv]

Yeah that's some of it.I thought you meant he called you something really bad like a big doo-doo head or something. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I thought you meant he called you something really bad like a big doo-doo head or something. :tongue:

or an insensitive b****? :)

[tv]

or an insensitive b****. :)

Ohhh, good one William Anthony. I like you too. :D Have a rootbeer on me! :beer:

[tv]

Yeah that's some of it. You know what is interesting is when I mistakenly typed Bella and there were protest about that but none when he referred to Martin as "your martin" in a post to me and there were no protests, other than from martin and me, about it. However, I agree we should stay on topic.I didn't say anything about Bella. :shrug: It wasn't me. I'm innocent. You can't pin it on me. Nope, can't take the fall on this one. :)

[William Anthony]

Ohhh, good one William Anthony. I like you too. :D Have a rootbeer on me! :beer:

I had to edit my post because I was asking a question of you, which was would you consider Mr. Bell calling me that as name calling. With that said, why do you continue to post on a subject that has been resolved after we have both suggested we get back on topic? Is this to inflame a situation that has been resolved? You can have your :beer: back and drink it with your doo-doo head assessment of name calling. Thanks for the offer but I respectfully decline.

[William Anthony]

I didn't say anything about Bella. :shrug: It wasn't me. I'm innocent. You can't pin it on me. Nope, can't take the fall on this one. :)

Let's try to stay on topic.

[tv]

Let's try to stay on topic.Okay, William Anthony, I was just playing with you. If you're not in the mood that's fine. I'm not really in the mood for OJ Simpson this morning so I'll scoot along and find something else to do. Have a lovely day...and I really didn't mean anything with the doo-doo head comment...I was making a joke...and I've never claimed to be a comedian. :)

[William Anthony]

Okay, William Anthony, I was just playing with you. If you're not in the mood that's fine. I'm not really in the mood for OJ Simpson this morning so I'll scoot along and find something else to do. Have a lovely day...and I really didn't mean anything with the doo-doo head comment...I was making a joke...and I've never claimed to be a comedian. :)

I respect your desire to not be in the mood. I hope your day is lovely as well. I see you are a tad bit not your usual good-natured self. We often try our hands at things and I am not a comedian either. I know that you and I know we have both joked and see no reason why we can't in the future.

[tv]

I respect your desire to not be in the mood. I hope your day is lovely as well. I see you are a tad bit not your usual good-natured self. We often try our hands at things and I am not a comedian either. I know that you and I know we have both joked and see no reason why we can't in the future.I'm feeling very good-natured. I didn't even get mad when you called me a you know what. I believe someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning and needs a little power nap and I'm not talking about myself. I'll butt heads with you later...:seeya:

[William Anthony]

I'm feeling very good-natured. I didn't even get mad when you called me a you know what. I believe someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning and needs a little power nap and I'm not talking about myself. I'll butt heads with you later...:seeya:

I have not called you anything. If people are on a power trip, they often need a power nap, and I am not talking about myself or anyone else-just an observation.

[tv]

I have not called you anything. If people are on a power trip, they often need a power nap, and I am not talking about myself or anyone else-just an observation.Okay, William Anthony, if you say so...

[William Anthony]

Okay, William Anthony, if you say so...

See how easy it is when you agree with me. :)

[tv]

See how easy it is when you agree with me. :)
Enjoy it while it lasts.

[William Anthony]

Enjoy it while it lasts.

I will. I will. I, William. I Will, I am.:)

[tv]

I will. I will. I, William. I Will, I am.:)ahhh, another clever one. You're just a font of wit today. :)

[William Anthony]

ahhh, another clever one. You're just a font of wit today. :)

I enjoy have pleasant conversations but am not opposed to other types, if necessary.

[William Anthony]

Good for you. I have no idea what you're going on about. I haven't posted on this thread for a while.I have a life and other things to do with my time.

You don't intimidate me and I'm sure that you don't intimidate TV. I don't have to prove myself to anyone and certainly not to you. Thanks TV for stating the obvious about William's tunnel vision of reality. Anyone who doesn't agree with William.....
William, use the ignore button. I won't because I'm confident enough in myself not to need to. As you say, you've been here much longer than me.

So goodbye:seeya:

I have no reason to intimidate you or to try. I should have said that I also enjoy conversations with posters that offer information of substance. I am glad you have a life and hope it gets fuller. It was TV that brought your nic up and, as you will see, I reminded her that the situation was resolved and complimented you on your change of tactics, but it seems I was premature. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:.

[martin II]

Good for you. I have no idea what you're going on about. I haven't posted on this thread for a while.I have a life and other things to do with my time.

You don't intimidate me and I'm sure that you don't intimidate TV. I don't have to prove myself to anyone and certainly not to you. Thanks TV for stating the obvious about William's tunnel vision of reality. Anyone who doesn't agree with William.....
William, use the ignore button. I won't because I'm confident enough in myself not to need to. As you say, you've been here much longer than me.

So goodbye:seeya:

i suggest:read:

[tv]

I have no reason to intimidate you or to try. I should have said that I also enjoy conversations with posters that offer information of substance. I am glad you have a life and hope it gets fuller. It was TV that brought your nic up and, as you will see, I reminded her that the situation was resolved and complimented you on your change of tactics, but it seems I was premature. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:.

Your tactics were pushing the boundaries yesterday and I'm not in the magnanimous mood today that I was yesterday so please don't push me. I brought up Joseph Bell to Martin yesterday because he made a false claim against him. You jumped in to champion Martin and that's how yesterday's conversation evolved.

[William Anthony]

Your tactics were pushing the boundaries yesterday and I'm not in the magnanimous mood today that I was yesterday so please don't push me. I brought up Joseph Bell to Martin yesterday because he made a false claim against him. You jumped in to champion Martin and that's how yesterday's conversation evolved.

This is not quite accurate. One could say that you championed Mr. Bell. I sincerely hope that your less than magnanimous yesterday's mood improves. I never pushed you yesterday or today. I responded with your admitted feeble attempt at humor with my own. This last comment is in no way intended to be sexist but I can think of only one way to offer it,(I did think of another way) If you can't stand the heat, move away from the furnace. I think if any boundaries were nearly encroached yesterday that you were the guilty (pun intended) party.

[tv]

This is not quite accurate. One could say that you championed Mr. Bell. I sincerely hope that your less than magnanimous yesterday's mood improves. I never pushed you yesterday or today. I responded with your admitted feeble attempt at humor with my own. This last comment is in no way intended to be sexist but I can think of only one way to offer it,(I did think of another way) If you can't stand the heat, move away from the furnace. I think if any boundaries were nearly encroached yesterday that you were the guilty (pun intended) party.

Don't be coy, William Anthony. You know you were name-calling yesterday. I'm sure it won't happen again, right? :)

[William Anthony]

Don't be coy, William Anthony. You know you were name-calling yesterday. I'm sure it won't happen again, right? :)

I will try to improve on my comedic responses, if you will. Can we get back on topic?

[martin II]

Your tactics were pushing the boundaries yesterday and I'm not in the magnanimous mood today that I was yesterday so please don't push me. I brought up Joseph Bell to Martin yesterday because he made a false claim against him. You jumped in to champion Martin and that's how yesterday's conversation evolved.

TV
Are you saying i made a false claim against bell? or are yopu saying something else?

[tv]

TV
Are you saying i made a false claim against bell? or are yopu saying something else?You made a false claim against Joseph Bell when you said his first post contained name-calling. I checked back and have found no name-calling at all. William Anthony reminded me of the sweetie comment and the your Martin comment. Neither one of them reach the level of name-calling and you were completely wrong about him coming into this forum name-calling.

[William Anthony]

You made a false claim against Joseph Bell when you said his first post contained name-calling. I checked back and have found no name-calling at all. William Anthony reminded me of the sweetie comment and the your Martin comment. Neither one of them reach the level of name-calling and you were completely wrong about him coming into this forum name-calling.

Yes, for another poster to call someone my person, when the person being referred to is a free male citizen, is calling a name to both me and the other poster, because that is not the type of relationship I engage in with anyone free person, especially not another male. For that poster, with a male nic to call another poster with a male nic, sweetie, is name calling, imho. You may see it as a term of endearment but I found it offensive as well as his suggestion that they should make music together. I think those are things for Pms. In any event, I believe those issues have been resolved. So, I reiterate my question. Can we get back on topic?

[tv]

Yes, for another poster to call someone my person, when the person being referred to is a free male citizen, is calling a name to both me and the other poster, because that is not the type of relationship I engage in with anyone free person, especially not another male. For that poster, with a male nic to call another poster with a male nic, sweetie, is name calling, imho. You may see it as a term of endearment but I found it offensive as well as his suggestion that they should make music together. I think those are things for Pms. In any event, I believe those issues have been resolved. So, I reiterate my question. Can we get back on topic?

OMG, I'm sorry to have opened this can of worms again. You called me a name yesterday and I let it go. Can you ever let any slight, imagined or real, go? Ever? Feel free to get back on topic with yourself. I don't have anything to add to this thread today. :seeya:

[martin II]

You made a false claim against Joseph Bell when you said his first post contained name-calling. I checked back and have found no name-calling at all. William Anthony reminded me of the sweetie comment and the your Martin comment. Neither one of them reach the level of name-calling and you were completely wrong about him coming into this forum name-calling.

"Your martin II" and "sweetie" is name calling since my nic is MartinII and there has been no indication that i belong to anyone.
But maby you see no fault since the comments were not directed to you or you supports bells comments for some other reason.:flamemad:

[William Anthony]

OMG, I'm sorry to have opened this can of worms again. You called me a name yesterday and I let it go. Can you ever let any slight, imagined or real, go? Ever? Feel free to get back on topic with yourself. I don't have anything to add to this thread today. :seeya:

Never called you a name. With that said, I respect your admission on having nothing to add to today. So, :cool: :cool: :cool: .

[martin II]

OMG, I'm sorry to have opened this can of worms again. You called me a name yesterday and I let it go. Can you ever let any slight, imagined or real, go? Ever? Feel free to get back on topic with yourself. I don't have anything to add to this thread today. :seeya:

Where did you get that can opener you seem to use so frequently?

[tv]

Where did you get that can opener you seem to use so frequently? I don't have to use a can opener. The can of worms has one of those new-fangled pull tabs on it.

[tv]

Never called you a name. With that said, I respect your admission on having nothing to add to today. So, :cool: :cool: :cool: .Riiight. :D

[William Anthony]

Riiight. :D

Glad we can agree again. :cool: :cool: :cool: way :cool: Do you often read yesterday's newspaper, today?

[martin II]

I don't have to use a can opener. The can of worms has one of those new-fangled pull tabs on it.

Maby you can do a better job of understding what can you have in hand before you pull the tab.

[martin II]

I don't have to use a can opener. The can of worms has one of those new-fangled pull tabs on it.

How many different cans of worms do you have there?You can always just take all of the opened cans and go fishing.Maby you can catch a fish.:cool:

[tv]

Glad we can agree again. :cool: :cool: :cool: way :cool: Do you often read yesterday's newspaper, today?It's a habit I picked up from you.

[tv]

How many different cans of worms do you have there?You can always just take all of the opened cans and go fishing.Maby you can catch a fish.:cool:No need to go fishing when there are big-mouth bass right on this forum. :cool:

[William Anthony]

It's a habit I picked up from you.

Good, I try very hard to be agreeable. :) Don't imitate, innovate.

[William Anthony]

No need to go fishing when there are big-mouth bass right on this forum. :cool:

You may be in the wrong steam, since there has been a claim that the fish hasn't posted in quite a while due to swimming upstream. Way :cool:

[tv]

Good, I try very hard to be agreeable. :) Don't imitate, innovate.That wit is showing through again. My, my William Anthony, how do you manage to be so clever all the time? BTW, I hate to remind the off-topic moderator that he's off-topic...but, you're off-topic.

[tv]

You may be in the wrong steam, since there has been a claim that the fish hasn't posted in quite a while due to swimming upstream. Way :cool:Willliam Anthony, it's so :cool: of you to refer to the knowledgable bobaugust in such a veiled manner. Don't bait; obfuscate.

[William Anthony]

That wit is showing through again. My, my William Anthony, how do you manage to be so clever all the time? BTW, I hate to remind the off-topic moderator that he's off-topic...but, you're off-topic.

I am not the moderator. However, I did mention it but there seemed to be an abundance of desire to continue the discussion. So be it.

[William Anthony]

Willliam Anthony, it's so :cool: of you to refer to the knowledgable bobaugust in such a veiled manner. Don't bait; obfuscate.

While I agree that bobaugust is quite "knowledgable", I was not referencing him in any manner. Don't insinuate, stimulate (or was this your cry for help). :)

[tv]

While I agree that bobaugust is quite "knowledgable", I was not referencing him in any manner. Don't insinuate, stimulate (or was this your cry for help). :)Thank you for pointing out my spelling error since weezer isn't here. I do appreciate it and I know she'll be glad you filled in during her absence.

Not referring to bobaugust? Whatever you say. :D

[William Anthony]

Thank you for pointing out my spelling error since weezer isn't here. I do appreciate it and I know she'll be glad you filled in during her absence.

Not referring to bobaugust? Whatever you say. :D

I wasn't pointing out you error. I thought you mean the poster you posted about was a letter short of being knowledgeable. How's that for humor? :)

[tv]

I wasn't pointing out you error. I thought you mean the poster you posted about was a letter short of being knowledgeable. How's that for humor? :)I don't know when I've laughed so hard. I guess you know that I'll be pointing out your next spelling error to you.

I really am leaving this thread now. We've gone too far off-topic and we must remember the people that only read this forum. It's not fair to them and apparently they're becoming annoyed with us. :)

[martin II]

No need to go fishing when there are big-mouth bass right on this forum. :cool:

Some worms also. maby some of yours.

[William Anthony]

I don't know when I've laughed so hard. I guess you know that I'll be pointing out your next spelling error to you.

I really am leaving this thread now. We've gone too far off-topic and we must remember the people that only read this forum. It's not fair to them and apparently they're becoming annoyed with us. :)

Agreed, but you missed this one, "I thought you mean the poster..."

Correction-I thought you meant....:)

[tv]

Some worms also. maby some of yours.

I try to keep all my worms in the can but there a few snakes running loose around here.

[tv]

Agreed, but you missed this one, "I thought you mean the poster..."

Correction-I thought you meant....:)

Not to worry. I got you over in the other thread. :)

[William Anthony]

Not to worry. I got you over in the other thread. :)

yes, I saw that. Hell hath no furry...:).

[William Anthony]

I try to keep all my worms in the can but there a few snakes running loose around here.

Is MF around here? You really should put him and his cohorts back in the can.

[tv]

yes, I saw that. Hell hath no furry...:).I hate to point this out (well, actually I don't :D) but I believe you'll find that it's "fury". :)

[William Anthony]

I hate to point this out (well, actually I don't :D) but I believe you'll find that it's "fury". :)

I stand corrected. Hell's fury cannot closely compare. Just to let you know, I let your misspelling of future go on the other thread. :)

[tv]

I stand corrected. Hell's fury cannot closely compare. Just to let you know, I let your misspelling of future go on the other thread. :) You are quite the humanitarian - I may let your next misspelling go uncorrected.

[William Anthony]

You are quite the humanitarian - I may let your next misspelling go uncorrected.

I am enjoying this off topic discussion and I doubt that you will, because, imho, hell cannot closely compare.:)

[tv]

I am enjoying this off topic discussion and I doubt that you will, because, imho, hell cannot closely compare.:)You're right I probably reading won't because your posts tend to make me want to hone my spelling skills. Maybe weezer will be back soon and take her place as spelling monitor. She's much better at it than I am.

As far as hell not comparing to me, I haven't decided yet whether or not to be offended. I'll let you know.

[William Anthony]

You're right I probably reading won't because your posts tend to make me want to hone my spelling skills. Maybe weezer will be back soon and take her place as spelling monitor. She's much better at it than I am.

As far as hell not comparing to me, I haven't decided yet whether or not to be offended. I'll let you know.

Just as I am not sure to be offended at your statement about my posts making you want to hone your spelling skills. Oh heck, let's agree not to be offended, shall we, or would that be too much fun? :)

[martin II]

You're right I probably reading won't because your posts tend to make me want to hone my spelling skills. Maybe weezer will be back soon and take her place as spelling monitor. She's much better at it than I am.

As far as hell not comparing to me, I haven't decided yet whether or not to be offended. I'll let you know.

tv
you seem to be quite informed today.I wanted to ask what you thought about the comment attibuted to M Clarke about her undies being absent?
:)

[martin II]

I haven't finished looking at all the posts but I'm up to June 5th and haven't found one where he calls you or Martin a name. Would you happen to have a key word I can search? It would make it a lot easier for me. I'm interested in reading how the communications between you, Martin and Joseph Bell degenerated into such animosity.

I can help you to understand if you desire to be informed. But you can always ask bella what she/he meant.

[William Anthony]

I can help you to understand if you desire to be informed. But you can always ask bella what she/he meant.

That is a sign of a true gentleman.

[tv]

tv
you seem to be quite informed today.I wanted to ask what you thought about the comment attibuted to M Clarke about her undies being absent?
:)If it's true then it's inappropriate but unless the people she made the comment to are adolescent males it was harmless. Why are some people in this forum so concerned with her alleged frivilous remark?

[tv]

I can help you to understand if you desire to be informed. But you can always ask bella what she/he meant.

Martin, you have informed me quite extensively already. William Anthony says this matter is resolved but I see you've decided to continue with the Bella nic for Joseph Bell so I suppose it wasn't a typo on William Anthony's part after all. Why don't you ask JB what he meant?

[William Anthony]

Martin, you have informed me quite extensively already. William Anthony says this matter is resolved but I see you've decided to continue with the Bella nic for Joseph Bell so I suppose it wasn't a typo on William Anthony's part after all. Why don't you ask JB what he meant?

Whatever do you mean? Because someone else typed the word I mistakenly typed means it wasn't a typo on my part? Must I remind you of what the magnificent one said on circumstantial evidence and innocence as it related to reasonable inferences?:)

[tv]

Whatever do you mean? Because someone else typed the word I mistakenly typed means it wasn't a typo on my part? Must I remind you of what the magnificent one said on circumstantial evidence and innocence as it related to reasonable inferences?:)If it was a mistake then why keep using it? I know you well enough to think it wasn't a typo but if you say it was I have no proof otherwise. It doesn't seem to be bothering Joseph Bell so I suppose it's harmless. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

If it was a mistake then why keep using it? I know you well enough to think it wasn't a typo but if you say it was I have no proof otherwise. It doesn't seem to be bothering Joseph Bell so I suppose it's harmless. :shrug:

Harmless error, a legal concept.:)

[martin II]

If it's true then it's inappropriate but unless the people she made the comment to are adolescent males it was harmless. Why are some people in this forum so concerned with her alleged frivilous remark?

Maby she was fishing.I think the judge should have made her prove it.But then, maby not. :cool:

[William Anthony]

At least you're admitting there was a sweat suit in the machine. You're making progress.

I can give you that one but the questions are whose was it and how did it get there and when did it get there? We know that MF was prone to moving evidence and fabricating evidence. ;) :cool:

[tv]

I can give you that one but the questions are whose was it and how did it get there and when did it get there? We know that MF was prone to moving evidence and fabricating evidence. ;) :cool:
No proof, just more fantasy.

[William Anthony]

No proof, just more fantasy.

What? HE ADMITTED TO DOING BOTH.

[tv]

What? HE ADMITTED TO DOING BOTH.If you have a chill pill prescribed you need to take it. Please cite the case where he admitted to doing this. Your unfounded allegations are not enough.

BTW, unless Mark Fuhrman is somehow connected to the Vegas case this is the wrong thread.

[William Anthony]

If you have a chill pill prescribed you need to take it. Please cite the case where he admitted to doing this. Your unfounded allegations are not enough.

BTW, unless Mark Fuhrman is somehow connected to the Vegas case this is the wrong thread.

With all due respect, why did you not say that when you first responded. Here it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I can give you that one but the questions are whose was it and how did it get there and when did it get there? We know that MF was prone to moving evidence and fabricating evidence.

No proof, just more fantasy.

He admitted to moving evidence in the Simpson trial and to fabricating evidence on the LHM tapes. With that Said, you have my permission to move (pun intended) these posts to the Issues in the Criminal Trial thread. :) ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

If you have a chill pill prescribed you need to take it. Please cite the case where he admitted to doing this. Your unfounded allegations are not enough.

BTW, unless Mark Fuhrman is somehow connected to the Vegas case this is the wrong thread.

MF is on tv (no pun intended) flap-trapping about the Vegas case quite frequently. His mouth seems to preserve his connection.

[tv]

With all due respect, why did you not say that when you first responded. Here it is.




No proof, just more fantasy.

He admitted to moving evidence in the Simpson trial and to fabricating evidence on the LHM tapes. With that Said, you have my permission to move (pun intended) these posts to the Issues in the Criminal Trial thread. :) ;) :cool:The McKinney tapes were fabricated for a screen play. I don't know what evidence you taking about in the Simpson trial but this conversation is over in this thread and I don't intend to rehash it in another.

[William Anthony]

The McKinney tapes were fabricated for a screen play. I don't know what evidence you taking about in the Simpson trial but this conversation is over in this thread and I don't intend to rehash it in another.

Remember the glove and the pen and LHM's testimony that he was describing actual events and people.

[weezer]

Remember the glove and the pen and LHM's testimony that he was describing actual events and people.

I guess some people believe the stuff they see at the movies and theatre. Go figure.

I do know that they have orenthal on tape screaming, ranting, and raving to take everything. Guess that makes for armed robbery and orenthal as the perpetrator.

[martin II]

The McKinney tapes were fabricated for a screen play. I don't know what evidence you taking about in the Simpson trial but this conversation is over in this thread and I don't intend to rehash it in another.

i believe lhm testified that she retained Furhman to talka about his experience in lapd as it related to lapd treatment of Women.He is the one that started talking about his racist beliefs about mixed couples and minorities.Planting, abuse of citizens and all of his other work experiences.

[William Anthony]

I guess some people believe the stuff they see at the movies and theatre. Go figure.

I do know that they have orenthal on tape screaming, ranting, and raving to take everything. Guess that makes for armed robbery and orenthal as the perpetrator.

MF admitted he touched/moved the glove and then came up with the pen alibi. I think the tape will be played in the trial and what it says is what it says, just as LHM testified MF was speaking about actual events.

[tv]

MF admitted he touched/moved the glove and then came up with the pen alibi. I think the tape will be played in the trial and what it says is what it says, just as LHM testified MF was speaking about actual events.OJ Simpson on tape was a real time event and Mark Fuhrman was sitting in McKinney's apartment telling a story on tape. If you don't see the difference, oh well. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson on tape was a real time event and Mark Fuhrman was sitting in McKinney's apartment telling a story on tape. If you don't see the difference, oh well. :shrug:

He was telling a story based on reality. I think most of the time they were in the public not her apartment, IIRC. There may have been occasions when they were in her apartment when other people were present. I think she was smart enough not to be alone with MF after she heard his stories based on reality.

[weezer]

He was telling a story based on reality. I think most of the time they were in the public not her apartment, IIRC. There may have been occasions when they were in her apartment when other people were present. I think she was smart enough not to be alone with MF after she heard his stories based on reality.

reality check: orenthal on tape ranting and raving during an armed robbery.

[William Anthony]

reality check: orenthal on tape ranting and raving during an armed robbery.

yes, and his statements will be fully explored during the trial and, if necessary explained. MF had the chance to explain his but took the 5th instead. So, they were explained by direct evidence by LHM, who heard, witnessed his demeanor and transcribed his confessions.

[martin II]

reality check: orenthal on tape ranting and raving during an armed robbery.

Weezer
you seem to be in need of some new info.

[William Anthony]

If Nevada does not have the authority to enforce the California judgment and the property was brought into Nevada allegedly by thieves, who stole the property from Simpson, then who does the property brought into Vegas legally belong to?

[tv]

He was telling a story based on reality. I think most of the time they were in the public not her apartment, IIRC. There may have been occasions when they were in her apartment when other people were present. I think she was smart enough not to be alone with MF after she heard his stories based on reality.I believe she was alone with him quite a bit -- they had a sexual relationship. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

I believe she was alone with him quite a bit -- they had a sexual relationship. :rolleyes:


Good Morning,

There was no evidence of this. Oh, the convicted perjurer told the prosecution that he had one with her. When Darden asked her that question under oath, she denied it. That is the state of the evidence. ;) :cool:

[SlowHandSam]

Good Morning,

There was no evidence of this. Oh, the convicted perjurer told the prosecution that he had one with her. When Darden asked her that question under oath, she denied it. That is the state of the evidence. ;) :cool:

perhaps she lied? perhaps she was convinced to lie? she certainly wouldn't be the first person to lie under oath in that trial.

you keep tooting the horn that MF was a liar ... birds of a feather flock together.

just sayin'.

[William Anthony]

perhaps she lied? perhaps she was convinced to lie? she certainly wouldn't be the first person to lie under oath in that trial.

you keep tooting the horn that MF was a liar ... birds of a feather flock together.

just sayin'.

Good Morning,

I am talking evidence. Supposedly, there was a letter and her denial would have made her credibility an issue and the letter could have been produced. It was not. She was not convicted of perjury but MF was.

[tv]

yes, and his statements will be fully explored during the trial and, if necessary explained. MF had the chance to explain his but took the 5th instead. So, they were explained by direct evidence by LHM, who heard, witnessed his demeanor and transcribed his confessions.
William Anthony, perhaps it's time to remind you that OJ Simpson will be the defendant in the Vegas trial. Mark Fuhrman was a witness in OJ Simpson's trial not the defendant. You need to add IMO when you characterize the tapes as confessions.

[tv]

Good Morning,

There was no evidence of this. Oh, the convicted perjurer told the prosecution that he had one with her. When Darden asked her that question under oath, she denied it. That is the state of the evidence. ;) :cool:You are truly naive if you think they didn't have an affair. I'm sure she had her own reasons for denying it.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, perhaps it's time to remind you that OJ Simpson will be the defendant in the Vegas trial. Mark Fuhrman was a witness in OJ Simpson's trial not the defendant. You need to add IMO when you characterize the tapes as confessions.

She testified he was describing actual events. The testimony is what it is. The conversation started with the mention of AD's comments and underwear and a sweat suit. Should I remind you that those are not a part of the Vegas trial?

[William Anthony]

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

It might be sad that you are truly naive if you think they had an affair and that you find the statements of a person against the person, who provided evidence that later convicted him of perjury, to be true. News flash, not everyone finds racism sexy. I am sure he had his reasons to try to discredit her. The evidence is what it is.

[tv]

It might be sad that you are truly naive if you think they had an affair and that you find the statements of a person against the person, who provided evidence that later convicted him of perjury, to be true. News flash, not everyone finds racism sexy. I am sure he had his reasons to try to discredit her. The evidence is what it is.I'll wait for your apology for this insult but I won't hold my breath.

News Flash: Mark Fuhrman is OFF-TOPIC for this thread.

[William Anthony]

I'll wait for your apology for this insult but I won't hold my breath.

News Flash: Mark Fuhrman is OFF-TOPIC for this thread.

Apology for what? News flash, so are AD's comments about the Criminal trial and the sweat suit.

[tv]

Apology for what? News flash, so are AD's comments about the Criminal trial and the sweat suit.Don't blame dumb. For letting me know that racism isn't sexy which infers that I think it is. I don't appreciate it.

[William Anthony]

Don't blame dumb. For letting me know that racism isn't sexy which infers that I think it is. I don't appreciate it.

Why, whatever do you mean? You made the statement that they had a sexual relationship. LHM testified that she found his racial remarks vile. The obvious implication is that she became turned on after hearing the vile remarks. She denied the relationship but yet you said it happened. I pointed out that the prosecution did not show any evidence, which there was a claim there was some, to refute her denial. Thus, I posted not everyone is turned on by racism. The obvious import of your statements is that she could not control herself after hearing these vile words. If you are able to control yourself after hearing the vile words, then allow her the same privilege. That is all I am saying, since there was no evidence of a sexual relationship. I was not speaking to you specifically and was addressing your posts and the evidence as it pertains to the alleged relationship.

[tv]

Why, whatever do you mean? You made the statement that they had a sexual relationship. LHM testified that she found his racial remarks vile. The obvious implication is that she became turned on after hearing the vile remarks. She denied the relationship but yet you said it happened. I pointed out that the prosecution did not show any evidence, which there was a claim there was some, to refute her denial. Thus, I posted not everyone is turned on by racism. The obvious import of your statements is that she could not control herself after hearing these vile words. If you are able to control yourself after hearing the vile words, then allow her the same privilege. That is all I am saying, since there was no evidence of a sexual relationship. I was not speaking to you specifically and was addressing your posts and the evidence as it pertains to the alleged relationship.
OFF-TOPIC. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

OFF-TOPIC. :seeya:

:seeya: :seeya: ;) :cool:

[SlowHandSam]

Why, whatever do you mean? You made the statement that they had a sexual relationship. LHM testified that she found his racial remarks vile. The obvious implication is that she became turned on after hearing the vile remarks. She denied the relationship but yet you said it happened. I pointed out that the prosecution did not show any evidence, which there was a claim there was some, to refute her denial. Thus, I posted not everyone is turned on by racism. The obvious import of your statements is that she could not control herself after hearing these vile words. If you are able to control yourself after hearing the vile words, then allow her the same privilege. That is all I am saying, since there was no evidence of a sexual relationship. I was not speaking to you specifically and was addressing your posts and the evidence as it pertains to the alleged relationship.

I'm trying to locate the bridge to get from someone having a physical relationship and someone else using "vile" words being connected?

She wasn't having sex with his words. Many people have physical relationships with folks that they don't necessarily appreciate, believe or support their personal view points. That's why it's a physical relationship.

Perhaps she found sexy his height, hair color, voice ... so many things to choose from when it comes to what women find sexy. Sometimes - the sexiest man is the one who keeps his dang mouth shut. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm trying to locate the bridge to get from someone having a physical relationship and someone else using "vile" words being connected?

She wasn't having sex with his words. Many people have physical relationships with folks that they don't necessarily appreciate, believe or support their personal view points. That's why it's a physical relationship.

Perhaps she found sexy his height, hair color, voice ... so many things to choose from when it comes to what women find sexy. Sometimes - the sexiest man is the one who keeps his dang mouth shut. :)

Well we know for sure that MF wasn't the "sexiest man". I do not share you pessimistic or should I say primordial view of most women and, especially, not this one, since the prosecution could produce no evidence of a sexual relationship. I think the bridge, in this instance, is easily attachable. It was as you say his inability to shut that big-bass mouth of his that ruined his chance at any sexual relationship with quite at least two other women-the one Ms. Bell (no pun intended, I mean Kathleen) was going to introduce him to and Natalie Singer. OFF TOPIC, REMEMBER?

[martin II]

I'm trying to locate the bridge to get from someone having a physical relationship and someone else using "vile" words being connected?

She wasn't having sex with his words. Many people have physical relationships with folks that they don't necessarily appreciate, believe or support their personal view points. That's why it's a physical relationship.

Perhaps she found sexy his height, hair color, voice ... so many things to choose from when it comes to what women find sexy. Sometimes - the sexiest man is the one who keeps his dang mouth shut. :)

Your point of what is handson may be controlled by what you think handsome is. i do agree that some have given the quite impression of being infactuated with furhmans 'LOOKS' and dreamed of some contact as a result. Or though that this was possiblle. Just as some women have written letters to S. P.
in hope of some relationship even though he sits in the death row scetion of a jail. So it is not unusual that some would ignore the facts of his actions and embrance furhman and ignore his racial views towards others.Especially since his views are directed to people that do not look like them. imo :cool:

[martin II]

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.:shrug:

[martin II]

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

Wonder what furhman told his wife about his sex activities with lhm and the other women he spent so much time trying to get horizontal.I bet he lied and denied all of it.imo

:cool:

[William Anthony]

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.:shrug:

I am moving this to the issues thread, so that I can properly respond.

[William Anthony]

I haven't posted on here for a while. You call yourself a man? To speak to a woman with such disrespect? :flamemad:

Why, Mr. Bell, whatever do you mean? Let's put the conversation in context. Shall we?

07-05-2008, 03:26 PM
tvdinner's Avatar
tvdinner tvdinner is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: lost in thought
Posts: 1,870

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Yeah that's some of it.

I thought you meant he called you something really bad like a big doo-doo head or something.

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
tvdinner

Old 07-05-2008, 03:28 PM
William Anthony's Avatar


Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 7,874
William Anthony
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
I thought you meant he called you something really bad like a big doo-doo head or something. tvdinner

or an insensitive b****?

As you are aware, this conversation started in regard to when you referred to martin as my martin and called martin sweetie, which I found offensive name calling. Tvdinner, then responded that she did not consider that name calling and provided an example of what she considered name calling. My response was in the form of a question seeking to see if you called me or martin or any other poster that, would she call it name calling. As you can see, there was no disrespect intended, unlike your remarks, especially your fried chicken remark and your offer to meet face to face with Martin to see what type of music you would make together. There is no need for you to get flaming (no pun intended) mad. Just be :cool: ; never let them see you sweat, Joe. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

I haven't posted on here for a while. :flamemad:

Sorry, I didn't miss you or your presence, shall we say. ;) :cool:

[weezer]

I haven't posted on here for a while. You call yourself a man? To speak to a woman with such disrespect? :flamemad:

hey -- welcome back.

don't get too mad -- some of the posters believe violence against a family member is okay.

[William Anthony]

hey -- welcome back.

don't get too mad -- some of the posters believe violence against a family member is okay.

Yeah, don't go flaming about mad.

[tv]

I haven't posted on here for a while. You call yourself a man? To speak to a woman with such disrespect? :flamemad:
Nice to see you back. We all know what he was saying when he made that remark but he's sliding out on a technicality. That's okay, I'm putting it into historical context. Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. We didn't even get the vote until 1920. Until relatively recent history women in America were treated as property of their husbands. Women were expected to keep their mouths shut about politics and other such men folk talk. That makes me understand why WA feels entitled to call me a name. It's all about history.

[weezer]

Nice to see you back. We all know what he was saying when he made that remark but he's sliding out on a technicality. That's okay, I'm putting it into historical context. Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. We didn't even get the vote until 1920. Until relatively recent history women in America were treated as property of their husbands. Women were expected to keep their mouths shut about politics and other such men folk talk. That makes me understand why WA feels entitled to call me a name. It's all about history.

oh my gosh -- now you've done it. you know that women couldn't have possibly suffered as much as the friends/relatives/friends of friends/guy down of the . . .

[William Anthony]

Nice to see you back. We all know what he was saying when he made that remark but he's sliding out on a technicality. That's okay, I'm putting it into historical context. Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. We didn't even get the vote until 1920. Until relatively recent history women in America were treated as property of their husbands. Women were expected to keep their mouths shut about politics and other such men folk talk. That makes me understand why WA feels entitled to call me a name. It's all about history.

We must be able to recite history correctly. I never called you a name. Women historically got their rights after Blacks were afforded rights, shall we say privileges. Quite the opposite of our posts, which should make you feel better. :)

[tv]

oh my gosh -- now you've done it. you know that women couldn't have possibly suffered as much as the friends/relatives/friends of friends/guy down of the . . .You're right...what was I thinking? :tongue:

[William Anthony]

You're right...what was I thinking? :tongue:

You opened the door to a historical account of how and when women got their privileges. Want to close it? :)

[tv]

You opened the door to a historical account of how and when women got their privileges. Want to close it? :)I stand by what I said but it's becoming off-topic. I'll allow you the last word if you like.

[William Anthony]

I stand by what I said but it's becoming off-topic. I'll allow you the last word if you like.

Thanks but I took it. :)

[tv]

Thanks but I took it. :)Good for you.

[William Anthony]

Good for you.

Can you let me enjoy it? :)

[martin II]

Nice to see you back. We all know what he was saying when he made that remark but he's sliding out on a technicality. That's okay, I'm putting it into historical context. Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. We didn't even get the vote until 1920. Until relatively recent history women in America were treated as property of their husbands. Women were expected to keep their mouths shut about politics and other such men folk talk. That makes me understand why WA feels entitled to call me a name. It's all about history.

Is this the women that can vote that trash and demean other women and vote to support the racist M Fuhrman thread?

[SlowHandSam]

Is this the women that can vote that trash and demean other women and vote to support the racist M Fuhrman thread?

no, it's the William Anthony must have the last word, thread.

[martin II]

oh my gosh -- now you've done it. you know that women couldn't have possibly suffered as much as the friends/relatives/friends of friends/guy down of the . . .

Everyone that cannot vote suffers.

[tv]

no, it's the William Anthony must have the last word, thread.

:beer:

[martin II]

no, it's the William Anthony must have the last word, thread.

Stop parroting please.

[martin II]

Nice to see you back. We all know what he was saying when he made that remark but he's sliding out on a technicality. That's okay, I'm putting it into historical context. Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. We didn't even get the vote until 1920. Until relatively recent history women in America were treated as property of their husbands. Women were expected to keep their mouths shut about politics and other such men folk talk. That makes me understand why WA feels entitled to call me a name. It's all about history.

hhhmmm
WELCOME BACK!!!!

The person that sterotyped 8,000,000 Somalians as people that run down the street with hatches chopping each other up.IMO:flamemad:

[William Anthony]

:beer:

Does jealousy rear its head? :)

[William Anthony]

hhhmmm
WELCOME BACK!!!!

The person that sterotyped 8,000,000 Somalians as people that run down the street with hatches chopping each other up.IMO:flamemad:

There's no accounting for taste. One of the posters said she liked fried chicken.

[martin II]

I'll wait for your apology for this insult but I won't hold my breath.

News Flash: Mark Fuhrman is OFF-TOPIC for this thread.

Apology for what?

[martin II]

There's no accounting for taste. One of the posters said she liked fried chicken.

I don't think that one has a clue.imo

[SlowHandSam]

I don't think that one has a clue.imo

I don't have a clue that I like fried chicken?

Hmm ... okay. I'm pretty sure I know my dietary preferences. In fact, I know that about as well as I know that you and WA will continue to be a-holes on this board to anyone who doesn't kiss your arse like some posters do.

Yup, pretty confident in that.

[William Anthony]

I don't have a clue that I like fried chicken?

Hmm ... okay. I'm pretty sure I know my dietary preferences. In fact, I know that about as well as I know that you and WA will continue to be a-holes on this board to anyone who doesn't kiss your arse like some posters do.

Yup, pretty confident in that.

If you call knowing how to be polite, civil and respectful and not engage in name calling as kissing, then so be it. I am confident that you go out of your way to be the opposite, imho. I am trying very hard to remain civil even after you said that you did not respect me, simply because I want to see the level of posting improve. But keep in mind that I can be your huckleberry.

[tv]

Totally off topic. I don't care. There is someone calling him/herself 'Patricia' or perhaps 'Jesse' sending 'Hi I.m new messages' etc. Be warned. This is a hacker.Thanks, JB. I got one of those a few months ago and it was just so strange I didn't answer it. I didn't realize it was a hacker.

[tv]

I don't have a clue that I like fried chicken?

Hmm ... okay. I'm pretty sure I know my dietary preferences. In fact, I know that about as well as I know that you and WA will continue to be a-holes on this board to anyone who doesn't kiss your arse like some posters do.

Yup, pretty confident in that.I made fried chicken last night for supper with spinach, biscuits and gravy, squash from the garden...it was yummy. :)

[William Anthony]

I made fried chicken last night for supper with spinach, biscuits and gravy, squash from the garden...it was yummy. :)

I see some are not interested in raising the level of posting. I expected as much from Mr. Bell. Personally, I hate chicken because it has to much white me for my taste. Would you be kind enough and go to your garden and remain there until you have picked a thousand barrels of squash, then fry it up and sent it to Mr. Bell. I sure he would appreciate it since he has expressed an alleged new appreciation for southern delicacies. You will be missed in your absence, but I believe I will be able to suffer through it.

[William Anthony]

It was a while ago but my guide was a really nice African American lady who drove me around the interesting places in Atlanta. She recommended a restaurant in Atlanta which she said provided the best southern fried chicken in the US. Damn if she wasn't right! I also ate corn bread with my meal which I've never had before. It was fabulous!!!

I see that when tvdinner was talking about sticking something where the sun does not shine she was talking about the land down under.

[SlowHandSam]

I see some are not interested in raising the level of posting. I expected as much from Mr. Bell. Personally, I hate chicken because it has to much white me for my taste. Would you be kind enough and go to your garden and remain there until you have picked a thousand barrels of squash, then fry it up and sent it to Mr. Bell. I sure he would appreciate it since he has expressed an alleged new appreciation for southern delicacies. You will be missed in your absence, but I believe I will be able to suffer through it.

WA, you are a hypocrite at the core. You claim to want to raise the level yet you call names, insinuate that one is part of the KKK and then make these little innuendo comments.

You are doing the exact thing you are accusing others of doing.

[martin II]

It was a while ago but my guide was a really nice African American lady who drove me around the interesting places in Atlanta. She recommended a restaurant in Atlanta which she said provided the best southern fried chicken in the US. Damn if she wasn't right! I also ate corn bread with my meal which I've never had before. It was fabulous!!!

what was the name of the resturant?

[tv]

I see some are not interested in raising the level of posting. I expected as much from Mr. Bell. Personally, I hate chicken because it has to much white me for my taste. Would you be kind enough and go to your garden and remain there until you have picked a thousand barrels of squash, then fry it up and sent it to Mr. Bell. I sure he would appreciate it since he has expressed an alleged new appreciation for southern delicacies. You will be missed in your absence, but I believe I will be able to suffer through it.William, I meant nothing by that post. I really made that for supper last night and it was very good. I seriously don't understand your anger.