Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[martin II]

limakey, once again you've offered a misinterpretation of what I posted. I never said that Cora Fischman was a snake in the grass because she was having an affair. Where in the world did you get that idea? I simply said she was a snake in the grass. I don't understand how you can change the meaning of other people's posts and why everyone just goes along with it.

TV
Exactly what did you mean by cora is a "snake in the grass". Was she expected to sugar coat her testimony about Nicole or was she expected to tell the truth if some of it was not flattering to nicole.

Because she was nicoles friend was she not suppose to testify that she had complained to nicole that she was drinking and partying too much with a person she felt was trouble for nicole mainly Faye and the kind of company fay brought to her house. Was she supposed to not testify about Nicoles relationship with oj good friend Marcus Allen.When asked about Nicoles dating
habits was she suppose to lie.

She and nicole were good friends. They jogged daily togeather and had coffee at starbucks daily and talked on the phone daily and brought their kids togeather on a regular basis. she cared about nicole and oj.
What makes her a 'SNAKE IN THE GRASS." IMO

[tv]

TV
Exactly what did you mean by cora is a "snake in the grass". Was she expected to sugar coat her testimony about Nicole or was she expected to tell the truth if some of it was not flattering to nicole.

Because she was nicoles friend was she not suppose to testify that she had complained to nicole that she was drinking and partying too much with a person she felt was trouble for nicole mainly Faye and the kind of company fay brought to her house. Was she supposed to not testify about Nicoles relationship with oj good friend Marcus Allen.When asked about Nicoles dating
habits was she suppose to lie.

She and nicole were good friends. They jogged daily togeather and had coffee at starbucks daily and talked on the phone daily and brought their kids togeather on a regular basis. she cared about nicole and oj.
What makes her a 'SNAKE IN THE GRASS." IMO
A snake in the grass is someone that will betray you even though you trusted them. Nicole predicted that OJ Simpson would kill her and her friends would turn against her. Cora Fischman is one that turned against her.

[martin II]

That maybe true but I think it cuts the other way. Although there was no testimony that she purchased a blue black sweat suit for Simpson, the testimony shows that she could not say he did not give the one she purchased away, and there is evidence that Simpson wore a sweat suit with white by Kato's testimony. The obvious implication, since the defense had knowledge given them by Simpson, is that he did not retain ownership of any sweat suit that remotely resembled the fibers found.

The lady purchased a top made by one company and bottoms made by another.I don't think it was a matching set from the same materials and she did not know what the fiber content of either was.She thought it could have been polyester/cotton but the prosecution guessed it was all coton fibers.

There was no sweats tested to compare to the fibers found so there is absolutely no proof of what item the fibers came from.Period. Saying the fibers came from a item that was never examined for fiber content is not proof of anything.

[William Anthony]

The lady purchased a top made by one company and bottoms made by another.I don't think it was a matching set from the same materials and she did not know what the fiber content of either was.She thought it could have been polyester/cotton but the prosecution guessed it was all coton fibers.

There was no sweats tested to compare to the fibers found so there is absolutely no proof of what item the fibers came from.Period. Saying the fibers came from a item that was never examined for fiber content is not proof of anything.

I agree. To claim that it links Simpson to some non-existent clothing is simply reaching for the stars (pun intended). :)

[martin II]

A snake in the grass is someone that will betray you even though you trusted them. Nicole predicted that OJ Simpson would kill her and her friends would turn against her. Cora Fischman is one that turned against her.

tv
nope
Not talking about what nicole said about oj.

Exactly what acts did Cora commit that betrayed Nicole. Try to be specific so i can understand what her actions were.

Martin.

[weezer]

Martin,

IMO, I think it is very possible that the DA's didn't call Rachel's parent or parents to the stand because their statements about that night might have hurt their case.

:no: why would someone be called that talked to/saw Nicole before she was murdered WHEN they had telephone records that proved Nicole was alive after that time?

I think the defense may not have called them because Mr. Simpson did not want to take the chance that Rachel might be called to the stand or drag her and her parents through this mess.

:no: what in the world would the visiting child have to contribute at that point? we know that Nicole and her children were alive after the kid was taken home by her dad.

Or both sides may have come to conclusion that this testimony was a "wash" and both sides agreed not to call them.

I'm still shaking my head why they used a dog to start their timeline rather then the most obvious human witness. But again, it is a tough call when the witness is a child, IMO.

:no: I would have thought the dog barking would be fairly obvious as to the timeline. There was no child that was a witness.

It is really odd that the DA's failed horribly to provide the jurors with a "trigger" that night, yet they had a witness who came forward and yet they refused to provide her with police protection. I don't buy Petrocelli's reasons. Again, just MO.

:no: The jurors WERE provided a 'trigger' for that night -- it's called opportunity. There was NO witness that came forward that needed police protection.

reckless disregard for the truth often shows the character of the person.

[tv]

tv
nope
Not talking about what nicole said about oj.

Exactly what acts did Cora commit that betrayed Nicole. Try to be specific so i can understand what her actions were.

Martin.She gave an interview to the National Enquirer that involved personal information about Nicole. She said Nicole and Faye Resnick had a sexual encounter with a man. Whether it was true or not, what purpose did this information serve? On the stand, she tried to say she didn't remember the things she'd said in her civil trial deposition about Simpson's temper and violence against Nicole. In other words, she switched sides.

Why aren't we talking about what Nicole said about OJ? She predicted he would kill her and get away with it and her friends would turn on her. She was right.

[William Anthony]

I requested the participation of all in raising the level of posting by posting civilly. Is that too hard for us to do?

[SlowHandSam]

hi Bob.

I have a question. I'm sure y'all have hashed this out before - but with thousands of posts ... yeah.

What is your take on the discrepancy between JC's comment that oj was chipping golf balls and oj's claim he was napping the night of the murders as his explanation for not hearing the limo driver ring the bell?

--shs

[weezer]

FBG,

I'm sure Nicole had very strong opinons regarding cheating on a wife or a husband. However, it is important to remember that Nicole also had an affair with a married man---OJ Simpson. While I am not denying that Nicole was crushed by Simpson's cheating and cried a million tears over it, I am sure she did not cry any more tears or was more crushed then the first Mrs. Simpson.

:no: are you sure? I would have thought that the first mrs. simpson would have been happy that he found someone else to pound on. Odd that you give orenthal a pass on the cheating when you have been so vocal in your distain for anyone that does it. Maybe you have more experience and are able to differentiate whose fault cheating is -- husband or wife. . . . I have just always adultery is wrong.B]

While she may have disapproved of Cora's affair and expressed her concerns, Cora did not bring danger to her door step. Cora's affair posed no physical threat to Nicole and or her children. The same can't be said of Faye Resnick.

[B]:no: she didn't just disapprove of cora's affair, she was very upset over it and she and cora were having problems with it

I will not go into the details of Faye's book because they have been posted before, however if you are going to use the "Snake In The Grass" rating system, Faye Resnick, Kris Jenner and a few others would have a much higher rating then Cora Fischman, IMO.

:no: Cora was an addict that stayed at Nicole's for a very short period of time. Now I don't know where she was or what she was doing on the night orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole -- maybe rolling around in the sack with her young lover? (pun intended)

OJ and Cora spent a weekend together with their children in a different location then Brentwood how many years after Nicole had passed away? Cora, despite being exiled from Nicole's other "Snakes In the Grass" friend, stood by her convictions regarding the evidence in this case. She clearly believes Simpson is innocent. She loved Nicole and I see nothing wrong with OJ and Cora taking their children on a weekend outing. I see nothing wrong with OJ and Cora grieving over Nicole's death and discussing their good times together.

:no: it was within weeks of Nicole's death NOT years. orenthal and cora SAID nothing happened. now we both know they were/are adulterers so what's the odds that they didn't do more than 'grieve' together? LOL

One last thing, can you honestly say that you never had a close friend or a close family member do something or say something that you didn't not agree with and made your feelings clear on the subject? Have you never hurt a good friend or a loved one by a careless comment or action? Have you never said or did something to a close a friend or a loved one, that even after you know you hurt them, you would not change a word in the statement you made or would repeat the same action?

Again, IMO.

reckless disregard for the truth often reflects the character of the person.

[tv]

I requested the participation of all in raising the level of posting by posting civilly. Is that too hard for us to do?I don't think it's out of line to point out when a poster is disregarding the truth. I've noticed with one particular poster the posts have to be scrutinized carefully for discrepancies.

[Kate Sachel]

limakey, once again you've offered a misinterpretation of what I posted. I never said that Cora Fischman was a snake in the grass because she was having an affair. Where in the world did you get that idea? I simply said she was a snake in the grass. I don't understand how you can change the meaning of other people's posts and why everyone just goes along with it.

I don't go along with it. Trust me, I don't go along with half of what is posted on this forum so I just steer clear of the majority of it. Perhaps if I were back in elementary school I might be so inclined to play but as it stands I am an adult.

Here is what baffles me, many here have jumped on Faye Resnick for writing the books that she wrote while conveniently forgetting that it was Cora who first jumped on the media bandwagon and declared to the world that Nicole had a lesbian affair with Faye. Cora herself shopped around for a book deal and was denied, and then she actually wanted to co-author Faye's book. Once she was turned down to do so is when she swung to the OJ camp.

Kate

[tv]

I don't go along with it. Trust me, I don't go along with half of what is posted on this forum so I just steer clear of the majority of it. Perhaps if I were back in elementary school I might be so inclined to play but as it stands I am an adult.

Here is what baffles me, many here have jumped on Faye Resnick for writing the books that she wrote while conveniently forgetting that it was Cora who first jumped on the media bandwagon and declared to the world that Nicole had a lesbian affair with Faye. Cora herself shopped around for a book deal and was denied, and then she actually wanted to co-author Faye's book. Once she was turned down to do so is when she swung to the OJ camp.

KateThank you for clarifying that, Kate. I really believe that Cora Fischman betrayed Nicole's friendship and memory in a shameful way.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it's out of line to point out when a poster is disregarding the truth. I've noticed with one particular poster the posts have to be scrutinized carefully for discrepancies.

I did not mention any names but I think there is a polite way of saying things, such as I think you are mistaken without any disparaging remarks about the poster's character. IMHO, those types of posts tend to inflame. I am not saying that I have not been guilty in the past but I asked if we could start anew.

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you for clarifying that, Kate. I really believe that Cora Fischman betrayed Nicole's friendship and memory in a shameful way.

I agree, and the majority of Nicole's friends as well as her family betrayed Nicole after her death in similar shameful ways.

Kate

[tv]

I agree, and the majority of Nicole's friends as well as her family betrayed Nicole after her death in similar shameful ways.

KateIt saddens me to think that she realized before her death that she would be betrayed. It must have been a very lonely feeling.

[weezer]

It saddens me to think that she realized before her death that she would be betrayed. It must have been a very lonely feeling.

she predicted her death by orenthal and the betrayal by friends -- what a sad place she must have been in her life. I do think that on the last night of her life, she had to have been proud of herself for finally making the break with orenthal for all to see.

[martin II]

She gave an interview to the National Enquirer that involved personal information about Nicole. She said Nicole and Faye Resnick had a sexual encounter with a man. Whether it was true or not, what purpose did this information serve? On the stand, she tried to say she didn't remember the things she'd said in her civil trial deposition about Simpson's temper and violence against Nicole. In other words, she switched sides.

Why aren't we talking about what Nicole said about OJ? She predicted he would kill her and get away with it and her friends would turn on her. She was right.

So Cora should have not told the truth about nicoles like style so you would not beleive she betrayed her.Remember there was a male friend that accused nicole of asking him to participate in a three way.
i don't know about what you think she tried to do on the stand.

[martin II]

It saddens me to think that she realized before her death that she would be betrayed. It must have been a very lonely feeling.

I believe she was talking about faye as she was the one knew her dark secrets.

[Kate Sachel]

I believe she was talking about faye as she was the one knew her dark secrets.

According to those who were present when the alleged statement was made, Nicole said "OJ's going to kill me and get away with it and my friends are going to sell me out". That seems to indicate she was speaking of more than one indivdual.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

So Cora should have not told the truth about nicoles like style so you would not beleive she betrayed her.Remember there was a male friend that accused nicole of asking him to participate in a three way.
i don't know about what you think she tried to do on the stand.

It is one thing to share those details in a courtroom or deposition while under oath and being questioned regarding such. It is quite another to hop on national television days after your "best" friend has been brutally murdered and suggest to the nation that she was a wh*re.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

It is one thing to share those details in a courtroom or deposition while under oath and being questioned regarding such. It is quite another to hop on national television days after your "best" friend has been brutally murdered and suggest to the nation that she was a wh*re.

Kate

well said, Kate.

[martin II]

hi Bob.

I have a question. I'm sure y'all have hashed this out before - but with thousands of posts ... yeah.

What is your take on the discrepancy between JC's comment that oj was chipping golf balls and oj's claim he was napping the night of the murders as his explanation for not hearing the limo driver ring the bell?

--shs


I have always believed that oj heard Park ringing the bell but because he was gathering his things and packing there was no reason for him to stop as he knew Park was not going anyplace. The fact that Park saw the two bags that oj had brought down to the front door when Park drove in tells me that oj was in the house packing and bringing his bags down when Park was ringing.Not answering the telephone does not mean he was not in his house.imo

[William Anthony]

I have always believed that oj heard Park ringing the bell but because he was gathering his things and packing there was no reason for him to stop as he knew Park was not going anyplace. The fact that Park saw the two bags that oj had brought down to the front door when Park drove in tells me that oj was in the house packing and bringing his bags down when Park was ringing.Not answering the telephone does not mean he was not in his house.imo

I see no discrepancy. He chipped golf balls and then took a nap.

[SlowHandSam]

I have always believed that oj heard Park ringing the bell but because he was gathering his things and packing there was no reason for him to stop as he knew Park was not going anyplace. The fact that Park saw the two bags that oj had brought down to the front door when Park drove in tells me that oj was in the house packing and bringing his bags down when Park was ringing.Not answering the telephone does not mean he was not in his house.imo

that's not what OJ claims.
that's not what JC claimed.

[martin II]

Most of the people in ojs and nicole friendship circle went to the same resturants, same bars and other social gathering places.Everyone knew everyone and most knew what others were doing.Nicole dating habits and changed lifestyle was no secrete around Brentwood. Everyone seemed to be talking about everyone else.Whatever Nicole was she was. no need to sugar coat.imo.

[martin II]

that's not what OJ claims.
that's not what JC claimed.


That is what i said oj did after chipping and taking a short nap. he then started to finish packing.

[William Anthony]

It appears from this source that there maybe a misconception as to what Simpson actually said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9601/01-31/index.html

If this source is correct, there are no inconsistencies.

[Kate Sachel]

Most of the people in ojs and nicole friendship circle went to the same resturants, same bars and other social gathering places.Everyone knew everyone and most knew what others were doing.Nicole dating habits and changed lifestyle was no secrete around Brentwood. Everyone seemed to be talking about everyone else.Whatever Nicole was she was. no need to sugar coat.imo.

Nor is there any reason to sugarcoat OJ Simpson, yet you certainly do enough of it.

Kate

[martin II]

It appears from this source that there maybe a misconception as to what Simpson actually said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9601/01-31/index.html

If this source is correct, there are no inconsistencies.

A Park had just too many inconsistances in his various testimonies to believe
he accurately understood what he says oj told him on the phone, But for sure
he saw the two bags at the front door when he drove in and those bags had tto be put there by oj when he brought them down from upstairs just before Park saw him return into the front door.imo

[William Anthony]

A Park had just too many inconsistances in his various testimonies to believe
he accurately understood what he says oj told him on the phone, But for sure
he saw the two bags at the front door when he drove in and those bags had tto be put there by oj when he brought them down from upstairs just before Park saw him return into the front door.imo

That bag thing always puzzled me.

[martin II]

That bag thing always puzzled me.

I know me too.

Park gave different testimony of who put what bags where each time he testified. One time he said he did not know who put a certain bag in the trunk or the limo.At one time he said all three were in line going to the south walkway area. kato oj and then himself.At another time he said Kato was walking to the garage area he was standing by the limo and oj came out and said lets go we are late.Then he saw two cars in the driveway when there was one.He also said the person walking into the house could have had on a bath robe.Then he said oj had on a overcoat when he came out of the house to go to the airport.No wonder the jury asked for a readback of his testimony.
imo
hahaha

[William Anthony]

I know me too.

Park gave different testimony of who put what bags where each time he testified. One time he said he did not know who put a certain bag in the trunk or the limo.At one time he said all three were in line going to the south walkway area. kato oj and then himself.At another time he said Kato was walking to the garage area he was standing by the limo and oj came out and said lets go we are late.Then he saw two cars in the driveway when there was one.He also said the person walking into the house could have had on a bath robe.Then he said oj had on a overcoat when he came out of the house to go to the airport.No wonder the jury asked for a readback of his testimony.
imo
hahaha

I don't know how many bags there were or how one could have disappeared, unless it traveled in the same circles as the socks.:)

[martin II]

I don't know how many bags there were or how one could have disappeared, unless it traveled in the same circles as the socks.:)

Some times i believe Clarke wanted to suggest oj ate the shoes and knife. :)

[William Anthony]

Some times i believe Clarke wanted to suggest oj ate the shoes and knife. :)

I think we may have ventured off topic. :)

[martin II]

I think we may have ventured off topic. :)

i AGREE

[limakey]

TV,

I asked you for statements made by Cora that led you to believe she was a snake in the grass.

Another poster, FBG used your "Snake In the Grass" comment and gave her reasons why Cora was a snake in the grass.

I did not identify FBG by the name, I just used "another poster". I am sorry if you thought I was I refering to you. If you go back and read the posts, you will see that I only asked you a question and then FBG asked me questions.

[tv]

I know me too.

Park gave different testimony of who put what bags where each time he testified. One time he said he did not know who put a certain bag in the trunk or the limo.At one time he said all three were in line going to the south walkway area. kato oj and then himself.At another time he said Kato was walking to the garage area he was standing by the limo and oj came out and said lets go we are late.Then he saw two cars in the driveway when there was one.He also said the person walking into the house could have had on a bath robe.Then he said oj had on a overcoat when he came out of the house to go to the airport.No wonder the jury asked for a readback of his testimony.
imo
hahaha
Brenda Moran, who requested the readback, stated through her lawyer that the request had no significance.

[tv]

TV,

I asked you for statements made by Cora that led you to believe she was a snake in the grass.

Another poster, FBG used your "Snake In the Grass" comment and gave her reasons why Cora was a snake in the grass.

I did not identify FBG by the name, I just used "another poster". I am sorry if you thought I was I refering to you. If you go back and read the posts, you will see that I only asked you a question and then FBG asked me questions.Okay. :)

[martin II]

Brenda Moran, who requested the readback, stated through her lawyer that the request had no significance.

That may be what Brenda thought/wrote but 11 others asked for the readback on Park. Two other jurors were quoted as saying they did not believe park could have seen what he claims he saw from where he was at the ashford gate. After discussing Park more they took a vote and voted not guilty.Park was a troubeling witness for the prosecution because of how his testimony changed. I think when Clarke asked him about the two cars he saw
and he continued to say there were two even though she asked him are you sure. The jury knew there was only one so i guess the quesiton for the jury was why is he sticking to the two stuff.imo

[martin II]

Ms. Clark: Was That Call Placed At 10:49:07?

Mr. Park: Yes.


Ms. Clark: After You Called Your Boss At Home And Got No Answer, What Did You Do Next?

Mr. Park: Umm, I Stepped Back Out Of The Car And Proceeded To Ring The Buzzer Some More Times, Still Got No Answer.

Ms. Clark: Okay. How Many More Times Did You Ring The Buzzer At That Point, Sir?

Mr. Park: I Don't Know. Two Or Three.



Ms. Clark: All Right. When You Rang The Buzzer Again A Couple More Times And Got No Answer, What Happened Next?

Mr. Park: The Next Thing I Remembered Was Hearing The Car Phone Ring Inside The Car And Got Back In And Picked Up The Phone And It Was Dale St. John.

Ms. Clark: Okay. Now, Do You See On The Phone Bill In Front Of You, Sir, A Call At 10:52 And 17 Seconds?

Mr. Park: Yes, I Do.



Ms. Clark: And At 10:52 And 17 Seconds In The Evening, Sir, Did You Speak To Your Boss In The -- On The Car Phone In The Stretch Limo?

Mr. Park: Yes, I Did.



Ms. Clark: Now, As You Were Seated In The Limousine Speaking To Your Boss Did You -- Did You Say Something To Your Boss?

Mr. Park: Yeah. I Told Him That I Thought Nobody Was Home.



Ms. Clark: Okay. What Did Your Boss Tell You?

Mr. Park: Well, First He Told Me, He Said -- He Said, "o.j.'s Usually Running A Little Late So Hang Out Until About 11:15. If He Is Not There By Then, Go Ahead And Come On Home."

Ms. Clark: Okay.

Mr. Park: He Also Asked -- Because I Told Him There Was No Lights On Downstairs -- He Asked Me To Look At The Pantry Area, What He Called A Pantry Area Where There Was What Resembled Some Sunroofs Or Skylighting Toward The Garage Area And He Asked Me If There Was Any Lights On In There.

Ms. Clark: Okay.

Mr. Park: He Said He Usually Watches T.v. In There.


Ms. Clark: All Right. And Did You Do What He Asked You To Do? Did You Look?

Mr. Park: Yes.

Ms. Clark: And Did You See Any Lights On In That Area?

Mr. Park: No, I Didn't.



Ms. Clark: At Some Point During Your Phone Conversation With Dale St. John Did Something Attract Your Attention?

Mr. Park: Yes. A White Male Walked From Behind The House Area On A Pathway And He Had A Flashlight In His Hand And He Stopped -- He Stopped Before He Got To The Driveway.

Ms. Clark: Okay.

Mr. Park: So I -- I Told Dale That, You Know, Somebody Is Home.



Ms. Clark: And That Person That You Are Describing, Have You Since Learned What His Name Is?

Mr. Park: Yes.

Ms. Clark: And What Is His Name?

Mr. Park: Kato.


Ms. Clark: Could You Tell Where He Was Looking Or What He Was Doing?

Mr. Park: He Looked At Me And Then He Just -- He Started To Look, You Know, In The Area Of The Rockingham Driveway.



Ms. Clark: How Long -- Now, At The Same Time That You Saw Kato Kaelin In The Side Yard, Did You See Anything Else?

Mr. Park: Yes. I Saw A Figure Come Down -- Well, Not Come Down, But I Saw A Figure Come Into The Entranceway Of The House Just About Where The -- Where The Driveway Starts.



Ms. Clark: Okay.

Can You Describe What He Looked Like, What That Person Looked Like.

Mr. Cochran: Object To The Form Of That Question, Your Honor.

The Court: Overruled.

Mr. Park: Six Foot, 200 Pounds.

Ms. Clark: Six Foot, 200 Pounds?

Mr. Park: All Dark Clothing.

Ms. Clark: And Could You Tell Anything Else About This Person?

Mr. Park: No.

Ms. Clark: Could You Tell Whether The Person Was Caucasian Or African American?

Mr. Park: black.



Ms. Clark: And This Six-foot 200-pound African American Person In All Dark Clothing, Was This Person Moving Quickly Or Slowly?

Mr. Park: Not Quickly, Not Slowly, A Good Pace Walk It Seemed To Be.

Ms. Clark: And Moving In What Direction, Sir?

Mr. Park: into The House Or Toward The House
.
Ms. Clark: Did You Form An Opinion As To Whether This Was A Male Or Female?

Mr. Park: No

Park saw oj returning into the house after he brought the two duffle bags dont to the porch.Under cross when he was asked if the person could have been wearing a black bath robe he said 'COULD HAVE"

[martin II]

correction

Down

[tv]

martin, either you give Brenda Moran credibility or you don't. You can't say she didn't know what she was talking about and then have faith in her decision on the verdict. I'm sure she knows whether or not her request for a readback was significant.

[weezer]

Park saw oj returning into the house after he brought the two duffle bags dont to the porch.Under cross when he was asked if the person could have been wearing a black bath robe he said 'COULD HAVE"

his statement and testimony is that he saw the figure on the drive -- not at the end of the walk

[martin II]

martin, either you give Brenda Moran credibility or you don't. You can't say she didn't know what she was talking about and then have faith in her decision on the verdict. I'm sure she knows whether or not her request for a readback was significant.

11 other jurors voted to ask for a readback of Parks testimony.Moran was expressing her opinion not the opinion of the other 11 obviously as others
stated they did not believe Park.

Jurors had different opinons on certain specific issues.But when decision time came where they had to evaluate the whol case, all decided that the prosecution did not PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

[martin II]

his statement and testimony is that he saw the figure on the drive -- not at the end of the walk

It sound to me like he is describing the short walkway that starts at about the side of the driveway that leads "into the entrance of the house" That would be right at the bench at the front door where the two duffle bags were seen by Park when he drove the limo in next to that spot.


Mr. Park: Yes. I Saw A Figure Come Down -- Well, Not Come Down, But I Saw A Figure Come Into The Entranceway Of The House Just About Where The -- Where The Driveway Starts.

[martin II]

correctrion
Whole case.

[bobaugust]

Park saw oj returning into the house after he brought the two duffle bags dont to the porch.Under cross when he was asked if the person could have been wearing a black bath robe he said 'COULD HAVE"

martin II, Isn't this thread about the civil trial?

In the criminal trial there was no evidence that Simpson came out of his house in the twenty minutes Park was waiting for a response from him and before Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. When Cochran asked Park if the person he saw could have had a robe on Park answered honestly saying "Could have" since he could not tell what kind of dark clothing the person was wearing. On redirect Clark asked Park if he saw the hem of a robe swirling around the legs of the person he saw. Park answered "No."

In the civil trial Petrocelli asked Park about this.

November 20, 1996

Q. In this last 30 seconds with your telephone call with Dale, when you first saw this blond-haired person, did you then see anything, or anyone else come in this area over here?
A. Yes. I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.
Q. And can you tell us what the person looked like that you saw go from the driveway area into the house?
A. Six foot, 200 pounds, and all black clothing.
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.
Q. At that moment in time, did you believe that you were seeing that person wear a robe?
A. At the time, no.
Q. Did you believe that you saw a swirling hem of a robe?
A. No.
Q. Did you believe you saw, like a belt of a robe waving and flipping around and so forth?
A. No.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Isn't this thread about the civil trial?

In the criminal trial there was no evidence that Simpson came out of his house in the twenty minutes Park was waiting for a response from him and before Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. When Cochran asked Park if the person he saw could have had a robe on Park answered honestly saying "Could have" since he could not tell what kind of dark clothing the person was wearing. On redirect Clark asked Park if he saw the hem of a robe swirling around the legs of the person he saw. Park answered "No."

In the civil trial Petrocelli asked Park about this.

November 20, 1996

Q. In this last 30 seconds with your telephone call with Dale, when you first saw this blond-haired person, did you then see anything, or anyone else come in this area over here?
A. Yes. I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.
Q. And can you tell us what the person looked like that you saw go from the driveway area into the house?
A. Six foot, 200 pounds, and all black clothing.
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.
Q. At that moment in time, did you believe that you were seeing that person wear a robe?
A. At the time, no.
Q. Did you believe that you saw a swirling hem of a robe?
A. No.
Q. Did you believe you saw, like a belt of a robe waving and flipping around and so forth?
A. No.

bobaugust

bob thanks

not seeing a robe hem flipping around in the almost pitch dark does not mean the person did not have on a robe.imo

[bobaugust]

bob thanks

not seeing a robe hem flipping around in the almost pitch dark does not mean the person did not have on a robe.imo

martin II, it wasn't pitch dark. Park saw Simpson when he came into the light of his front entrance and walked up to his front door. All Park could say was Simpson was wearing a dark shirt and dark pants. There is no evidence that Simpson was wearing a robe.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, it wasn't pitch dark. Park saw Simpson when he came into the light of his front entrance and walked up to his front door. All Park could say was Simpson was wearing a dark shirt and dark pants. There is no evidence that Simpson was wearing a robe.

bobaugust

Park never testified that the AA was wearing 'DARK SHIRT AND DARK PANTS"
HE testified 'DARK CLOTHING" When asked if the person could have been wearing a robe Park said 'COULD HAVE' 50% could 50% could not.

[martin II]

martin II, it wasn't pitch dark. Park saw Simpson when he came into the light of his front entrance and walked up to his front door. All Park could say was Simpson was wearing a dark shirt and dark pants. There is no evidence that Simpson was wearing a robe.

bobaugust

Bob
There was no lights on at the front entrance of the house before oj returned from bringing down the bags and turned on the lights.Park testified that he saw no lights on in the ground level of the house. Kato testified that when he made his first trip to the garage area the front lights were not on.Park was still at Ashford.imo

[martin II]

Park never testified that the AA was wearing 'DARK SHIRT AND DARK PANTS"
HE testified 'DARK CLOTHING" When asked if the person could have been wearing a robe Park said 'COULD HAVE' 50% could 50% could not.

bob
i read your post again and see that Park made different claims at different times. He said "dark pants and dark shirt" in your post.In another post of his testimony he said the person was wearing 'DARK CLOTHES' that 'COULD BE A ROBE"
This is the problem with Park, he was constantly changing his testimony depending on who was asking the quesitons and what day it was i guess.

He had the same problem with the bags, the address, the two cars. This is why maby the jury member said they did not believe Parks testimony.
imo

[bobaugust]

Bob
There was no lights on at the front entrance of the house before oj returned from bringing down the bags and turned on the lights.Park testified that he saw no lights on in the ground level of the house. Kato testified that when he made his first trip to the garage area the front lights were not on.Park was still at Ashford.imo

martin II, you are incorrect about the lighting and about the clothing Park testified to. I'm going to respond to you only to correct your incorrect comments but I suggest if you wish to continue discussing the criminal trial testimony you should do it on the correct thread. Park testified in the criminal trial there were no lights on downstairs in the house only upstairs but there were lights on outside the house. In the grand jury Park testified that Simpson was wearing a dark shirt and dark pants.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE LIGHTING WAS LIKE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA THAT YOU
WERE ABLE TO SEE?
A THE LIGHTING? IT WASN'T -- IT WASN'T THAT BRIGHT. IT DIDN'T OFFER MUCH LIGHT AT ALL. I REMEMBER A LIGHT ON THE -- IN THE ENTRANCEWAY BY THE FRONT DOOR, AND FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, I THINK THERE WAS A LIGHT ABOVE THE GARAGE THAT DIDN'T OFFER MUCH LIGHT.

June 21, 1994 Allan Park
Q. BY MS. CLARK: HOW WAS HE MOVING?
A. HE WAS NOT RUNNING, BUT HE WAS MOVING QUICKLY.
Q. WHAT WAS HE WEARING?
Q. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IT WAS DARK CLOTHES. I CANNOT TELL WHAT KIND OF CLOTHES, SUIT OR ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST A DARK SHIRT AND DARK PARTS.
Q. COULD YOU TELL IF THE SHIRT HAD LONG OR SHORT SLEEVES?
A. NO, I COULDN'T.
Q. DID YOU SEE WHERE THIS MALE BLACK WENT?
A. HE WENT INTO THE FRONT DOOR AND ENTERED THE HOUSE.

bobaugust

[limakey]

IMO, when I read the comment that Nicole made regarding Simpson killing her and her friends selling her out---I got the feeling that Nicole felt her friends would all jump to OJ's defense, saying that would never do this. In that regard, she was not sold out---IMO.

As to her family, the Browns had several people acting as their spokesperson as well as dealing with the media. IMO, it appears to me that they got really, really bad advice and they paid the price in the media. Do I agree with every thing they did, no, but there is no evidence to suggest that the Browns did not love their daughter and sister.

As for Cora and her comments about Nicole and Faye---the editor of the National Enquirer was the co-author on Faye's book. However, it appears to me from other comments from Nicole's friend that she was not acting herself for about the last six months of her life. She was acting so out of character that she caused concern among her friends. Isn't it possible that Cora's words were taken out of context and that perhaps she was using the Faye-Nicole fling or whatever you want to call it, as proof of her beliefs that Faye was bad news to Nicole? That Nicole would not have participated in any of these things if it were not for Faye?

As well all know, once Cora did say she knew about this, the reporter has free reign on how they write story.

[limakey]

Kate,

In regards to Fay Resnick and her books---as you well know I don't agree with the Son of Sam laws. She had every right to write a book, regardless of the contents.

However, IMO, the main reason why Faye wrote the book was to keep her off of the witness stand. If she is telling the truth, then she would have been the best witness for the DA's domestic abuse motive. I am sure money also played a role, but I think Faye was more concerned about her life and the money was a small bonus, IMO.

In regards to Cora's book, her book deal was probably turned down for the same reasons that Denise's and her father's book deal fell through. They would not write about the things the publishers wanted them to write.

However, if Cora did want to make a lot of money on a book, she could have made millions--if her book supported the DA's theory of the case. Because it didn't, the book deal fell through. I think every book that even remotely supports the defense case did rather poorly in sales.

As we all know, "cash for trash books" seems to be the real money makes, IMO.

Also, do you have proof that Cora never suspect OJ of the murders? Do you know why she feels that Simpson is innocent? Did she give details when and why she began having doubts? The point is, if she did believe at one time that Simpson was guilty, then she must have reasons why she changed her mind. A broken book deal is not, IMO, a reason to change sides--especially since one side could have made her a rich woman. IMO.

[martin II]

IMO, when I read the comment that Nicole made regarding Simpson killing her and her friends selling her out---I got the feeling that Nicole felt her friends would all jump to OJ's defense, saying that would never do this. In that regard, she was not sold out---IMO.

As to her family, the Browns had several people acting as their spokesperson as well as dealing with the media. IMO, it appears to me that they got really, really bad advice and they paid the price in the media. Do I agree with every thing they did, no, but there is no evidence to suggest that the Browns did not love their daughter and sister.

As for Cora and her comments about Nicole and Faye---the editor of the National Enquirer was the co-author on Faye's book. However, it appears to me from other comments from Nicole's friend that she was not acting herself for about the last six months of her life. She was acting so out of character that she caused concern among her friends. Isn't it possible that Cora's words were taken out of context and that perhaps she was using the Faye-Nicole fling or whatever you want to call it, as proof of her beliefs that Faye was bad news to Nicole? That Nicole would not have participated in any of these things if it were not for Faye?

As well all know, once Cora did say she knew about this, the reporter has free reign on how they write story.

I think that FAYE in her addicted controlling behavior was the one that kinda moved nicole into her, Fayes life style. One that it seem she was not involved in prior to her allowing Faye to become so close into her life.

Faye is the one that brought 'BAD' people into nicoles house according to the letter Nicole wrote Cora, It was faye that was freebasing in Nicole house. Nicole was not barhopping, picking up strange men prior to her involvement with faye. It seems that faye was leading and nicole was following.
Cora made her complaints abour Faye known to nicole and this seemed to cause some level of static between faye and nicole.

Faye seemed to be double dipping in her relatiionships between bad mouthing
Oj to Nicole and trying to be friendly to oj. Example was when she forced her way into some event oj gave which caused Nicole to believe and accuse oj was stealing her friends.

I think faye dumped all of that stuff abour nicole to Cora as a way of saying Nicole was closer to me that you. That relationship may have been true but it seems that the only reason Faye would have to make it public was to remain in control.
I don't think oj and Cora were the only two that recognized the change in Nicoles lifestyle. The guy that told Cora that Nicole had asked about threesomes and that he was surprised and embrassed by her comments is one instance of a person thinking she was acting out of character.imo

Most media reporters have a agenda when they interview.You say one word out of place and your whole intent can be twisted to mean something else.
imo

[Kate Sachel]

This is the problem with Park, he was constantly changing his testimony depending on who was asking the quesitons and what day it was i guess.



Yes, OJ had the exact same problem. Which is why no one believed him either.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

In regards to Fay Resnick and her books---as you well know I don't agree with the Son of Sam laws. She had every right to write a book, regardless of the contents.

However, IMO, the main reason why Faye wrote the book was to keep her off of the witness stand. If she is telling the truth, then she would have been the best witness for the DA's domestic abuse motive. I am sure money also played a role, but I think Faye was more concerned about her life and the money was a small bonus, IMO.

In regards to Cora's book, her book deal was probably turned down for the same reasons that Denise's and her father's book deal fell through. They would not write about the things the publishers wanted them to write.

However, if Cora did want to make a lot of money on a book, she could have made millions--if her book supported the DA's theory of the case. Because it didn't, the book deal fell through. I think every book that even remotely supports the defense case did rather poorly in sales.

As we all know, "cash for trash books" seems to be the real money makes, IMO.

Also, do you have proof that Cora never suspect OJ of the murders? Do you know why she feels that Simpson is innocent? Did she give details when and why she began having doubts? The point is, if she did believe at one time that Simpson was guilty, then she must have reasons why she changed her mind. A broken book deal is not, IMO, a reason to change sides--especially since one side could have made her a rich woman. IMO.

We don't know why her book deal fell through, and I have no idea what the contents of her book were to be about but if she wanted to co-author Faye's book then I have a pretty good idea.

I personally don't believe that she did ever think OJ innocent, though I do believe she had been brainwashed enough by the end of the criminal proceedings to convince herself otherwise. I saw Cora as a weak woman desperate for some form of fame, and when she couldn't make that happen on "Team Nicole" she jumped ship and swam to "Team OJ". To stay on Nicole's side would not have made her rich, apparently no one cared much to hear what she had to say.

Kate

[martin II]

Kate,

In regards to Fay Resnick and her books---as you well know I don't agree with the Son of Sam laws. She had every right to write a book, regardless of the contents.

However, IMO, the main reason why Faye wrote the book was to keep her off of the witness stand. If she is telling the truth, then she would have been the best witness for the DA's domestic abuse motive. I am sure money also played a role, but I think Faye was more concerned about her life and the money was a small bonus, IMO.

In regards to Cora's book, her book deal was probably turned down for the same reasons that Denise's and her father's book deal fell through. They would not write about the things the publishers wanted them to write.

However, if Cora did want to make a lot of money on a book, she could have made millions--if her book supported the DA's theory of the case. Because it didn't, the book deal fell through. I think every book that even remotely supports the defense case did rather poorly in sales.

As we all know, "cash for trash books" seems to be the real money makes, IMO.

Also, do you have proof that Cora never suspect OJ of the murders? Do you know why she feels that Simpson is innocent? Did she give details when and why she began having doubts? The point is, if she did believe at one time that Simpson was guilty, then she must have reasons why she changed her mind. A broken book deal is not, IMO, a reason to change sides--especially since one side could have made her a rich woman. IMO.


Absolutely correct.

If cora thought oj was guilty she could have just cashed in by trashing oj in a book that would have satisfied many. I think she spoke what she knew was the truth and took her hits for doing so. imo

[weezer]

IMO, when I read the comment that Nicole made regarding Simpson killing her and her friends selling her out---I got the feeling that Nicole felt her friends would all jump to OJ's defense, saying that would never do this. In that regard, she was not sold out---IMO.

:no: I think Nicole said/wrote exactly what she believed and what, in fact, happened. orenthal murdered her and cora sold her out.

As to her family, the Browns had several people acting as their spokesperson as well as dealing with the media. IMO, it appears to me that they got really, really bad advice and they paid the price in the media. Do I agree with every thing they did, no, but there is no evidence to suggest that the Browns did not love their daughter and sister.

:no: I've never heard anyone say they didn't believe the Browns didn't love their daughter and sister.

As for Cora and her comments about Nicole and Faye---the editor of the National Enquirer was the co-author on Faye's book. However, it appears to me from other comments from Nicole's friend that she was not acting herself for about the last six months of her life. She was acting so out of character that she caused concern among her friends. Isn't it possible that Cora's words were taken out of context and that perhaps she was using the Faye-Nicole fling or whatever you want to call it, as proof of her beliefs that Faye was bad news to Nicole? That Nicole would not have participated in any of these things if it were not for Faye?

:no: Nicole was VERY clear where the problems with cora stemmed from -- orenthal even talks about it in his statements/testimony. cora was using her friendship with Nicole to cover her adulterous affair with the bag boy at the grocery store.

As well all know, once Cora did say she knew about this, the reporter has free reign on how they write story.

:no: There is no other way to couch cora's actions and words -- she sold out her friend. cora was the wh*re and orenthal was the one with drugs in his system YET there are those who let these two losers talk about Nicole's lifestyle and how bad it was. What a joke. IMO

[weezer]

That may be what Brenda thought/wrote but 11 others asked for the readback on Park. Two other jurors were quoted as saying they did not believe park could have seen what he claims he saw from where he was at the ashford gate. After discussing Park more they took a vote and voted not guilty.Park was a troubeling witness for the prosecution because of how his testimony changed. I think when Clarke asked him about the two cars he saw
and he continued to say there were two even though she asked him are you sure. The jury knew there was only one so i guess the quesiton for the jury was why is he sticking to the two stuff.imo

I didn't realize the jury were witnesses that night -- go figure.

[weezer]

Kate,

In regards to Fay Resnick and her books---as you well know I don't agree with the Son of Sam laws. She had every right to write a book, regardless of the contents.

:no: what in the world does the Son of Sam 'laws' have to do with faye resnick and her 'books'?

However, IMO, the main reason why Faye wrote the book was to keep her off of the witness stand. If she is telling the truth, then she would have been the best witness for the DA's domestic abuse motive. I am sure money also played a role, but I think Faye was more concerned about her life and the money was a small bonus, IMO.

In regards to Cora's book, her book deal was probably turned down for the same reasons that Denise's and her father's book deal fell through. They would not write about the things the publishers wanted them to write.

However, if Cora did want to make a lot of money on a book, she could have made millions--if her book supported the DA's theory of the case. Because it didn't, the book deal fell through. I think every book that even remotely supports the defense case did rather poorly in sales.

As we all know, "cash for trash books" seems to be the real money makes, IMO.

Also, do you have proof that Cora never suspect OJ of the murders? Do you know why she feels that Simpson is innocent? Did she give details when and why she began having doubts? The point is, if she did believe at one time that Simpson was guilty, then she must have reasons why she changed her mind. A broken book deal is not, IMO, a reason to change sides--especially since one side could have made her a rich woman. IMO.

:no: I believe cora was so busy trying to cover her backside and what her husband and the world was going to find out about her that she didn't care about the rest of it. she was not going to be rich from writing a book because her credibility was shot when her character was known. The fact that she has now said she believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole doesn't carry much weight with anyone -- "a day late and a dollar short" as they say. IMO

[martin II]

I didn't realize the jury were witnesses that night -- go figure.

The jury witnessed Parks and other testimony and realized that as Clark tried to suggest to Park he was wrong about the two cars.

[martin II]

:no: I believe cora was so busy trying to cover her backside and what her husband and the world was going to find out about her that she didn't care about the rest of it. she was not going to be rich from writing a book because her credibility was shot when her character was known. The fact that she has now said she believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole doesn't carry much weight with anyone -- "a day late and a dollar short" as they say. IMO


Cora had a short relationship with a man when she and her husband were having trouble. Her credibility was no more shot abot this than fayes or Nicioles because of some of her activities.
I have not seen any comment by Cora where she says 'SHE NOW BELIEVES OJ MURDERED NICOLE AND RON" Do you have that direct comment?imo

[martin II]

:no: There is no other way to couch cora's actions and words -- she sold out her friend. cora was the wh*re and orenthal was the one with drugs in his system YET there are those who let these two losers talk about Nicole's lifestyle and how bad it was. What a joke. IMO

Weezer
Freqnently you speak about Coras short fling with a Grocery Bag Boy that worked at a local grocery store.She statred that this many gave her confort as she was having a difficult time with her husband.
What is the differance of her seeing this person as opposed to another Doctior Or Lawyer in Brentwood. Does the fact that the 'BOY' was not rich make the fling any more unacceptable or something?

[martin II]

A: What do I mean by that? She was doing-she was drinking too much and her association with Faye. That's pretty much.

Q: And you were concerned for her safety. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And that's why you went to talk to OJ. about going to Florida. Isn't that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And when you took that walk around the block with OJ. over at Rockingham, you said that you thought it was best that OJ. take Nicole and the kids, and move to Florida. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And that was because you were concerned about her safety, and you thought that OJ. could protect her. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And at that time OJ. told you that he was currently dating Paula. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And you thought OJ. was the best person to protect her at that time, didn't you? .

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: At that time, yes, because they wanted to-you know, I thought that they could get back together again.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: In 1992 was Nicole receiving threatening phone calls?

A: Yes.

Q: This was in the calendar year of 1992?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she tell you about those phone calls?

A: Yes. Every day someone was calling, calling her up like three, four times a day, and pretty much an obscene phone call.

Q: And this is when she moved into Gretna Green?

A: Yes

Q: Did she ever tell you that she was fearful because of these phone calls? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: Did she ever file a police report?

A: Yes.

Q: When did she file the police report, if you know?

A: During the time when she was worried about her safety. I don't know the time frame.

Q: Did she tell you that Detective Fuhrman and Phillips were the investigating officers during those phone calls?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. BAKER:

Q: The police found a suspect, didn't they?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And they identified one person who they believed were making the phone calls. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And that was not OJ. Simpson. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: And in fact Nicole asked OJ. to keep an eye on her because of these phone calls. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: She was concerned about her safety, and she was concerned about the safety of her children. True?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS: True. Actually, Nicole spoke to that guy.

BY MR. BAKER:

Q: Nicole spoke to the caller?

A: The caller.

Q: When did she speak to the caller?

A: That-when the guy was investigated. I mean when they found the guy.

Q: What did she say to him?

A: She said, "You have to stop calling me."

Q: Did she call him up?

A: No. I think the guy called again.

[martin II]

Q: Okay. But based on your conversations with Nicole, it was your understanding that Nicole was leaving Simpson and that he did not want Nicole to leave him. Correct?

A: Oh, you mean O.J. not wanting to leave Nicole?

Q: O.J. didn't want Nicole to leave him.

MR. BAKER: Speculation. Vague.

THE WITNESS: They were pretty much burnt out with each other at that time.

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: In what sense?

A: At the time Nicole told me that O.J. was going out with Paula.

Q: But other than just telling you that, didn't there ever come a time Nicole said, "It's through between us. I'm not seeing him anymore"?

A: Yeah, yeah, because, you know, she said to me, "If Paula's still around, you know, it's still the same. There's another woman," and she will not take that.

Q: And Nicole told you this?

A: Yeah.

[tv]

Q: Okay. But based on your conversations with Nicole, it was your understanding that Nicole was leaving Simpson and that he did not want Nicole to leave him. Correct?

A: Oh, you mean O.J. not wanting to leave Nicole?

Q: O.J. didn't want Nicole to leave him.

MR. BAKER: Speculation. Vague.

THE WITNESS: They were pretty much burnt out with each other at that time.

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: In what sense?

A: At the time Nicole told me that O.J. was going out with Paula.

Q: But other than just telling you that, didn't there ever come a time Nicole said, "It's through between us. I'm not seeing him anymore"?

A: Yeah, yeah, because, you know, she said to me, "If Paula's still around, you know, it's still the same. There's another woman," and she will not take that.

Q: And Nicole told you this?

A: Yeah.The only thing this proves is that Nicole dumped Simpson and he didn't want her to which we already knew.

[martin II]

The only thing this proves is that Nicole dumped Simpson and he didn't want her to which we already knew.

tv

I think the IRS letter was received by Nicole on or about june 6 Not sure.
This letter was direct from ojs lawyer informing Nicole that oj would not be a part of her scheme to defraud the IRS.This was a strong message to her that he was finished with the relationship and that she could not depend on him for this kind of support anymore.

The fact that oj had made it known to her/Cora that Paula was now his woman and nicole understood this, indicates that nicole knew oj was finished witrh the relatiionship it was over and this lead her to make the statement she made to cora.

[tv]

tv

I think the IRS letter was received by Nicole on or about june 6 Not sure.
This letter was direct from ojs lawyer informing Nicole that oj would not be a part of her scheme to defraud the IRS.This was a strong message to her that he was finished with the relationship and that she could not depend on him for this kind of support anymore.

The fact that oj had made it known to her/Cora that Paula was now his woman and nicole understood this, indicates that nicole knew oj was finished witrh the relatiionship it was over and this lead her to make the statement she made to cora.

He only sent the IRS letter to Nicole to get back at her. He's not so upstanding and law abiding that he wouldn't be a part of a tax scheme. It was revenge and a way to control her. After all, he didn't seem to mind stealing cable.

[martin II]

He only sent the IRS letter to Nicole to get back at her. He's not so upstanding and law abiding that he wouldn't be a part of a tax scheme. It was revenge and a way to control her. After all, he didn't seem to mind stealing cable.

His lawyer advised him not to get involved with Nicoles sceme because he would be at risk. Also he may not have wanted Nicole connected to his home
as he may have seen her efforts as a way she was trying to move back in which he had not allowed when she had been asking to let her come back.

imo

[martin II]

I have no idea what this has to do with the civil trial. Weezer, I will try to interpret. frequently; who; stated; man; comfort; difference; doctor.

Bell

If you don't know the testimony in the trials i can see that you may still be confused.imo

[tv]

His lawyer advised him not to get involved with Nicoles sceme because he would be at risk. Also he may not have wanted Nicole connected to his home
as he may have seen her efforts as a way she was trying to move back in which he had not allowed when she had been asking to let her come back.

imoI don't know why you don't understand that Nicole dumped Simpson not the other way around. She was finished with him. No one, even Cora, thinks that he didn't want her back. You just posted testimony that supports the fact that Nicole was done with him.

[martin II]

I don't know why you don't understand that Nicole dumped Simpson not the other way around. She was finished with him. No one, even Cora, thinks that he didn't want her back. You just posted testimony that supports the fact that Nicole was done with him.

1. Nicole asked oj to let her come home. He refused.
2. They tried a get back togeather period.seeing each other.
3. This did not work for either.
4. oj started seeing Paula regularly
5. Oj sends IRS letter. Nicole is angry
6. Oj informs all Paula is now his woman. not nicole.
7. Niciole is pissed and decides to also not see oj.

seems to me oj had moved on with paula.

[martin II]

1. Nicole asked oj to let her come home. He refused.
2. They tried a get back togeather period.seeing each other.
3. This did not work for either.
4. oj started seeing Paula regularly
5. Oj sends IRS letter. Nicole is angry
6. Oj informs all Paula is now his woman. not nicole.
7. Niciole is pissed and decides to also not see oj.

seems to me oj had moved on with paula.

tv
ps

It was reported that Nicole would drive over to ojs house. If Paulas car was there she would leave, if not she would find a reason to knock on the door and talk to oj.imo

[weezer]

Cora had a short relationship with a man when she and her husband were having trouble. Her credibility was no more shot abot this than fayes or Nicioles because of some of her activities.
I have not seen any comment by Cora where she says 'SHE NOW BELIEVES OJ MURDERED NICOLE AND RON" Do you have that direct comment?imo

what makes you think it was a 'short relationship' or that she and her husband were having trouble. Does it make it more palatable for you to blame her wh*ring on the husband? Her credibility and character were shot when she sold out Nicole and 'grieved' with orenthal. imo

[martin II]

what makes you think it was a 'short relationship' or that she and her husband were having trouble. Does it make it more palatable for you to blame her wh*ring on the husband? Her credibility and character were shot when she sold out Nicole and 'grieved' with orenthal. imo

She stated that she and her husband were having problems and this is why she had the fling with this man "boy" as you call him.

You point out it was a grocery boy. Would it be any different if it was with a another Doctor? What would the differance be?

[weezer]

1. Nicole asked oj to let her come home. He refused.
2. They tried a get back togeather period.seeing each other.
3. This did not work for either.
4. oj started seeing Paula regularly
5. Oj sends IRS letter. Nicole is angry
6. Oj informs all Paula is now his woman. not nicole.
7. Niciole is pissed and decides to also not see oj.

seems to me oj had moved on with paula.

yep it would SEEM that way except of course, orenthal wanted to die and if he had had the cajones, he could have pulled the trigger but he didn't so now we get to go to vegas.

[martin II]

what makes you think it was a 'short relationship' or that she and her husband were having trouble. Does it make it more palatable for you to blame her wh*ring on the husband? Her credibility and character were shot when she sold out Nicole and 'grieved' with orenthal. imo

I think Cora testified to the truth about Nicole. I think you may have been more pleased if she had sugar coated her testimonty about nicole based on your feelings about oj.But then she would been telling a lie on the stand.

There was a time when Nicole was bar hopping picking up strange men with faye and another time when she was dating many different guys.Would you call that wh*ring? Or would that be just having fun?imo

[martin II]

yep it would SEEM that way except of course, orenthal wanted to die and if he had had the cajones, he could have pulled the trigger but he didn't so now we get to go to vegas.

It seems you would have been pleased if oj had killed himself before the trial.
Thank God he did not.

[weezer]

She stated that she and her husband were having problems and this is why she had the fling with this man "boy" as you call him.

You point out it was a grocery boy. Would it be any different if it was with a another Doctor? What would the differance be?

she was a wh*re -- anyone married who sleeps around is a wh*re. I don't care if it's the husband or the wife and I don't care who they're sleeping with -- Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief.

hmmm -- I think I'm only repeating what I've read when I refer to the grocery boy as a 'boy' and not a 'man'.

[martin II]

yep it would SEEM that way except of course, orenthal wanted to die and if he had had the cajones, he could have pulled the trigger but he didn't so now we get to go to vegas.

It seems you would have been pleased if oj had killed himself before the trial.
Thank God he did not.
Your anger is deeper than what i can understand.imo

[weezer]

It seems you would have been pleased if oj had killed himself before the trial.
Thank God he did not.

nope -- it would have been better had he killed himself BEFORE he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

[William Anthony]

she was a wh*re -- anyone married who sleeps around is a wh*re. I don't care if it's the husband or the wife and I don't care who they're sleeping with -- Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief.

hmmm -- I think I'm only repeating what I've read when I refer to the grocery boy as a 'boy' and not a 'man'.

If they get paid, aren't they called prostitutes? :)

[martin II]

nope -- it would have been better had he killed himself BEFORE he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

Which is why i have said your anger is too much for me to understand.I will add hatred of a oj kind of guy.

[martin II]

Based on the stastistics of extra material affrairs in America and your name for the women involved we have a lot of wh*ores in our midst.What is the name you have for the men?

[Notknowingall]

Based on the stastistics of extra material affrairs in America and your name for the women involved we have a lot of wh*ores in our midst.What is the name you have for the men?

Excellent question martin.

[SlowHandSam]

Based on the stastistics of extra material affrairs in America and your name for the women involved we have a lot of wh*ores in our midst.What is the name you have for the men?

she already answered that in a previous post where it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman - she believes they are a wh*re.

[martin II]

she already answered that in a previous post where it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman - she believes they are a wh*re.

do you use the same title towards those people where you are?

[limakey]

Martin,

Have you ever wondered why when Dr. Ameli's office was broken into, why Ron Goldman's file was stolen along with Nicole's? Perhaps that is the reason why the DA's never used her.

[limakey]

Kate,

In regards to Cora, did you ever wonder why Petrocelli and Faye Resnick would try to discredit her? She certainly helped Petrocelli with some of her testimony, but why try to upset her and discredit in regards to a romantic relation ship with Simpson?

[SlowHandSam]

do you use the same title towards those people where you are?

while OT, I will answer. No, I do not use that term the same way. I use it in a far more derogatory manner, when I do use it.

[tv]

I think Cora testified to the truth about Nicole. I think you may have been more pleased if she had sugar coated her testimonty about nicole based on your feelings about oj.But then she would been telling a lie on the stand.

There was a time when Nicole was bar hopping picking up strange men with faye and another time when she was dating many different guys.Would you call that wh*ring? Or would that be just having fun?imoI'm sure any short flings that Nicole had it was because she was having a difficult time with her husband. That excuse seems to be okay for Cora so I guess it's okay for Nicole too. Something tells me you hold Nicole to a different standard.

[tv]

Are you agreeing with the Wh*** label?I'm wondering why Nicole has been trashed on this board for every little thing that's she's done or been suspected of doing but with Cora it was a short fling because she was having a difficult time with her husband and the boyfriend gave her comfort.

[William Anthony]

I deleted my last post because I have not engaged in victim bashing and do not feel it appropriate and do not want anyone to misconstrue the intent of that post. I believe that the only time murder is justifiable is in defense of self or a loved one and that everyone has a right to live, as long as they are not trying to kill someone else.

[William Anthony]

I'm wondering why Nicole has been trashed on this board for every little thing that's she's done or been suspected of doing but with Cora it was a short fling because she was having a difficult time with her husband and the boyfriend gave her comfort.

I deleted that post, because I did not want to have it misconstrued. I happen to not be so judgmental. There are instances in which I would use that word. I do not know enough about either female to label them.

[martin II]

I'm sure any short flings that Nicole had it was because she was having a difficult time with her husband. That excuse seems to be okay for Cora so I guess it's okay for Nicole too. Something tells me you hold Nicole to a different standard.

We know of one fling Cora had we know of several Nicole had and the activity with fay and the bar hopping thing. Both are entitled to whatever they weanted to do. But if we talk about one, Cora, we talk about the other Nicole.imo

do you consider Cora a W*ORE?

[martin II]

while OT, I will answer. No, I do not use that term the same way. I use it in a far more derogatory manner, when I do use it.

That i can believe.

[weezer]

I did not follow the civil trial very closely because of a very private matter. However, I think the civil trial raised even more questions about the case as well as wonder why the DA's didn't use at least one witness, Dr. Jennifer Ameli.

She called Nicole shortly before the murders. She said Nicole was very upset and was convinced Simpson was going to see at that night. In fact, Dr. A told her that she should have a friend come and sit with her until Simpson left that night for LAX. If she is telling the truth, then it makes no sense to me that Nicole was so worried about OJ that the only protection she took was to run a bath?

Triumph of Justice:

"My ultimate decision was not to use her at trial. Neither the Goldmans not the Browns believed her, there was no evidence of payment, but there was nothing about her story I could flatly contradict - nothing I knew was absolutely false - only the way it was delivered was completely incredible. . . .She didn't give the police her information immediately, she didn't tell anybody immediately; then there was the question of whether the break-in was staged, and the fact that her story came out in evolutionary stages."

[weezer]

We know of one fling Cora had we know of several Nicole had and the activity with fay and the bar hopping thing. Both are entitled to whatever they weanted to do. But if we talk about one, Cora, we talk about the other Nicole.imo

do you consider Cora a W*ORE?

there is NO evidence or testimony that Nicole had 'several' or even one affair while she and orenthal were together.

IMO, reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person.

[martin II]

there is NO evidence or testimony that Nicole had 'several' or even one affair while she and orenthal were together.

IMO, reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person.

I have not said she had affairs while married to oj as i have not read any comments of that period. I am talking about the affairs after the divoice that was testified to in court .AND M Allens future wife and nicioles friend allowed nicole to decoratre hers and Macurs home.Marcus Allen was maby the second best friend of OJ. Nicole did him for a while almost up to the time she was murdered. Against Coras advice to stop.

[weezer]

I have not said she had affairs while married to oj as i have not read any comments of that period. I am talking about the affairs after the divoice that was testified to in court .AND M Allens future wife and nicioles friend allowed nicole to decoratre hers and Macurs home.Marcus Allen was maby the second best friend of OJ. Nicole did him for a while almost up to the time she was murdered. Against Coras advice to stop.

you are a crude little man. :mad: :cuss:

[martin II]

I'm sure any short flings that Nicole had it was because she was having a difficult time with her husband. That excuse seems to be okay for Cora so I guess it's okay for Nicole too. Something tells me you hold Nicole to a different standard.

Nicole was divoiced from oj when she had her flings with several different men. This according to testimony of either Faye or Cora. I think Faye.
It was Marcus Allens future wife that gave nicole the idea that oj had baught some diamond earings for her. This is the lady that Nicole took advantage of by having that affair with Marcus.imo

[martin II]

you are a crude little man. :mad: :cuss:

I think you should watch your mouth.:flamemad:

[weezer]

I think you should watch your mouth.:flamemad:

are you threatening me?

[martin II]

are you threatening me?

NO. Why would i do that.I don't see you as being that important or necessary to anything i am concerned with.

I just think you are loosing it from your post to me with all of your usual anger and hatered. But then i should not be surprised.:flamemad:

imo

[weezer]

NO. Why would i do that.I don't see you as being that important or necessary to anything i am concerned with.

I just think you are loosing it from your post to me with all of your usual anger and hatered. But then i should not be surprised.:flamemad:

imo

whatever martin -- you were crude to post what you did. your usual anger and 'hatered' showing. But then I should not be surprised -- considering the source. :cuss: :mad: :flamemad:

[martin II]

Coras deposition.

Q: Okay. And one other thing: When you called Ron Hardy, you called him because isn't it a fact that he had told the producer, Barbara Walters, that you were not a real friend of Nicole's and that the Brown family didn't support you?

A: Well, the Browns wanted me to talk to Barbara Walters. I didn't want to talk to Barbara Walters.

Q: Right.

A: But then what they told me was, "You cannot talk about the lesbian affair." I said, "You're putting me" – "if they're gonna ask me questions, all I can say is tell the truth. I cannot deny anything.

Q: Well, you didn't know about the lesbian affair from yourself, did you?

A: From myself?

Q: I mean, you didn't have personal knowledge of that.

A: I don't have personal knowledge –

Q: Okay.

A: – but both of them told me.

Q: Go on. I'm sorry.

A: That's all.

[martin II]

whatever martin -- you were crude to post what you did. your usual anger and 'hatered' showing. But then I should not be surprised -- considering the source. :cuss: :mad: :flamemad:

I will continue to post testimony whether you like it or not. For the last time. I don't post to satisfy you as i don't see you as being that important to my concerns.imo

[weezer]

Coras deposition.

she also said that Nicole told her that orenthal was abusive and had threatened to kill her. she also said that at the end of her life, the only human being Nicole was afraid of harming her was orenthal james simpson.

[weezer]

I will continue to post testimony whether you like it or not. For the last time. I don't post to satisfy you as i don't see you as being that important to my concerns.imo

really? then little man, post testimony or a link to any testimony that shows "Nicole did him for a while almost up to the time she was murdered. Against Coras advice to stop." no one expects you to post to 'satisfy' me and I could care less if I'm important to your 'concerns' (whatever the 'ell that means) but you continue to disparage the victims in this case.

[weezer]

Coras deposition.

she also admitted to Walters that orenthal had been following Nicole, that he would lose his temper, that Nicole said orenthal beat her, and that Nicole was scared of him. she told Walters that Nicole was not into drugs, her life was not spinning out of control, and that acutally orenthal was her problem.

[martin II]

: Did Nicole and you ever discuss her feelings towards Paula?

A: Her feelings?

Q: Yes, Nicole's feelings.

A: Well, she was kinda jealous of Paula.

Q: And she related an incident at Marcus Allen's wedding where she left the wedding because Paula called?

A: She didn't attend the wedding, yes, because Paula called, yeah, right.

Q: So just because Paula called the Rockingham house –

A: Yeah.

Q: – Nicole refused to attend the wedding –

A: Exactly.

Q: And what – because she was so upset about Paula.

A: Yes.

Q: And in December of 1993 Nicole got very upset when a Christmas basket from Paula arrived at the Rockingham house as well. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And Nicole was angry with O.J. Simpson about that. Correct?

A: Yes. Right.

Q: Do you know whether Nicole ever spoke to Paula Barbieri?

A: That was the time when Nicole answered the phone, you know, June – Marcus Allen's wedding. That was the only time I know.

Q: And Nicole told you about this?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you there?

A: No.

Q: She called you up and told you about it?

A: Yes. She said that –

Q: What did she tell you?

A: She said that Paula called, and she answered the phone.

Q: This was at Rockingham?

A: Yeah, right, she was at Rockingham.

Q: And what did Nicole tell you transpired in the telephone call with Paula when she picked up the phone?

A: Nothing. She just said that –

Q: Nothing?

A: Well, she just – you know, she said, "Paula called, and I answered the phone," and that was it.

Q: You mean to tell me Nicole calls you up and says, "Paula called while I was at Rockingham. I answered the phone. Nothing else happened, and now I'm not going to the wedding"?

A: Yeah, she was upset. She says, "I don't believe that that woman's still" – "they're still talking to each other."

Q: And she was still upset when she talked to you

[martin II]

really? then little man, post testimony or a link to any testimony that shows "Nicole did him for a while almost up to the time she was murdered. Against Coras advice to stop." no one expects you to post to 'satisfy' me and I could care less if I'm important to your 'concerns' (whatever the 'ell that means) but you continue to disparage the victims in this case.


See coras deposition. Posting sworn testimony is sworn testimony.It cannot be hidden becuse you don't like what was testuified to. That you don't seem to understand. or cannot understand.

I think you should take your name calling someplace else. I have not given my opinion of what you are as i am not ready to be banned.imo
:punch: see ya.

[weezer]

See coras deposition. Posting sworn testimony is sworn testimony.It cannot be hidden becuse you don't like what was testuified to. That you don't seem to understand. or cannot understand.

I think you should take your name calling someplace else. I have not given my opinion of what you are as i am not ready to be banned.imo
:punch: see ya.

Nicole being upset over orenthal and paula still seeing each other has what to do with your crude post regarding Nicole and marcus allen?

[martin II]

It seems that coras 'GROCERY BOY' that Nicole introduced Cora to was a 32 years old man that worked at a grocery store.

Q: And Nicole was making-was expressing her views to [Name Deleted] that he should stop seeing you for a while. Correct?

A: Yes. Because Nicole felt guilty about- that's why she called [Name Deleted].

Q: Why did Nicole feel guilty?

A: Because she felt guilty because she's the one who kinda instigated me being-having a relationship with [Name Deleted].


I never knew it was Niciole that introduced Cora to the Grocery boy that was not really a boy but a grown man. imo

Q: You mean Nicole felt it was her fault-

A: Yes.

Q: -that you were abandoning your family and-

A: No.

Q: -children and carrying on with [Name Deleted]?

A: No, that's not why. She felt guilty, because she said to [Name Deleted], "I feel guilty. I feel I'm the one who pushed Cora into having a relationship with you."

Q: Did Nicole ever express that view to you?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that true?

A: In a way, yes.

Q: How did Nicole instigate you to have a relationship with [Name Deleted]?

A: This is very-this has nothing to do with Mr. Simpson's-

Q: In my view it's highly relevant, and I would ask that you answer the questions.

MR. BAKER: It's totally irrelevant. BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: I know Mr. Simpson and his lawyers would like you to withhold from us this information-

A: I-

MR. BAKER: Let me just put my objection on the record. BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: -but I am going to press you to answer the question-

MR. BAKER: That is-

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q:-and if you decline to answer the question, I will go to the judge.

MR. BAKER: That is beautiful, but the point is you are invading this woman's privacy rights in an attempt to harass her. She has constitutional privacy rights which you are treading over in your diatribe to bring out as much rumor and gossip as you possibly can.

MR. PETROCELLI: You are getting very good, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: You may answer the question.

MR. KRAMER: Do you want to talk to me for a moment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KRAMER: We are going to want to take a break.

MR. PETROCELLI: I will be delving into this area in detail. It directly involves Nicole, and it's highly relevant to understanding this witness' relationship with Nicole and her bias. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Bias?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

THEVIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 10:09.

(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)

THEVIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 10:14.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: The question I believe I asked before your break was: How did Nicole instigate you to have a relationship with [Name Deleted]?

A: She told me to loosen up. She says, you know, "Cora, you have such a bad marriage. Why don't you just relax, and probably this will help your marriage in the long run."

Q: What was the time frame?

A: That was around February of '95 -no-94-

Q: '94?

A: Yes.

Q: And you said that Nicole had known [Name Deleted] before you met [Name Deleted]?

A: Well, in the neighborhood, because [Name Deleted] used to play basketball at the park, and they've seen-not-they don't know, but [Name Deleted] knew her as being OJ.'s wife. Not personally. They didn't know each other personally.

Q: Did they ever go out together Nicole and [Name Deleted]?

A: Did they ever go out?

Q: Yes.

A: The three-not together, no.

Q: The two alone, to your knowledge?

A: To my knowledge?

Q: Yes.

A: They didn't go out. They didn't go out.

Q: Are you unsure? You seem like you're hesitating a bit.

A: Well, I don't know. I can say I don't know. But as far as I know, they never went out, the two of them.

Q: Did they have any relationship between them before you met and started to go OUt with [Name Deleted]?

A: No, they didn't have a relationship.

Q: How old is [Name Deleted]?

A: He's 32 years old.

Q: Okay. What is your age?

A: I'm 41.

Q: The-when did you start to go out with [Name Deleted]?

A: When did I start?

Q: (Nods head.)

A: In February of '94.

[weezer]

*Snipped*"It seems that coras 'GROCERY BOY' that Nicole introduced Cora to was a 32 years old man that worked at a grocery store. . .

A: Well, in the neighborhood, because [Name Deleted] used to play basketball at the park, and they've seen-not-they don't know, but [Name Deleted] knew her as being OJ.'s wife. Not personally. They didn't know each other personally. . ."

she testified that Nicole didn't personally know the guy so how do you figure she introduced them?

as far as cora blaming her wh*ring on Nicole, I'm not surprised she would -- remember the term 'snake in the grass". Like orenthal, she wasn't to blame. It was all Nicole's fault. "I beat Nicole because she made me." "I'm a wh*re because Nicole forced me into it." Good Gawd! I'm waiting for al gore to blame global warming on Nicole.

[martin II]

Nicole being upset over orenthal and paula still seeing each other has what to do with your crude post regarding Nicole and marcus allen?

It was what it was.You cannot hide or change what it was.What happened to M Allens wife was crude.

[martin II]

Q: Have they ever met before?

A: Oh, they have met before, yes.

Q: They had met.

A: Oh, you mean before-what do you mean, "before"? I mean, they've known each other for years.

Q: Oh, [Name Deleted] and Nicole?

A: Yes.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

she testified that Nicole didn't personally know the guy so how do you figure she introduced them?

as far as cora blaming her wh*ring on Nicole, I'm not surprised she would -- remember the term 'snake in the grass". Like orenthal, she wasn't to blame. It was all Nicole's fault. "I beat Nicole because she made me." "I'm a wh*re because Nicole forced me into it." Good Gawd! I'm waiting for al gore to blame global warming on Nicole.

I am posting testimony. you may continue to post your very small opinions. imo:cool:

[martin II]

Q: Well, let's focus a little bit then on that time frame. You had many discussions with Nicole about her decision to go back to Mr. Simpson in April '93 and before. Correct?

A: Right.

Q: And what did she say to you in the final analysis as to why she was going to go back with him?

A: Because she still loved OJ. At the time she was afraid that OJ. will be completely out of her life. She-and I told her, I said, "You make sure that if this is what you want this is what you want," because at the time OJ. was going out with Paula already, and she wanted her family back.

Q: Did she tell you-

A: She didn't think all these guys were-matched up with OJ.

Q: In other words, she had had an opportunity to date other men-

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: -for the first time in her adult life?

A: I would say yes, yeah.

Q: She had become involved with Mr. Simpson at a very young age. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: And after a year or so of dating other men, she decided that OJ. was the best person for her?

A: Yes.

Q: And she told you all these things and you talked about them?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Did you and she discuss the problems that they had in the marriage and whether they would resurface if she got back together with

OJ. Simpson?

A: Yes.

Q: And relate to me what Nicole said to you about that.

A: The problem?

Q: (Nods head.)

A: One was if only OJ. could be around the kids. He travels too much. He-he traveled, he works too much. If only they could have a simple life as opposed to all this, you know-

Q: Hollywood lifestyle?

A: Yes.

Q: Nicole didn't like that?

A: She was not into that. She wanted -she just wanted to raise her kids.

Q: What about the womanizing issue, did she discuss that with you?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: Well, when they went back-when they got back together, they both kinda talked to each other, saying that that will be over. Whatever happened the last seven years of their marriage, they're gonna work on that. That's why she was gonna clean up her act, and OJ., whatever he was doing, it was just going to be the two of them. They were going to make a commitment and it's just going to be the two of them. No more of these other men or other women.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

[tv]

It was what it was.You cannot hide or change what it was.What happened to M Allens wife was crude.martin, I don't think you get that the phrase you used to describe the relationship between Nicole and Marcus Allen was unnecessarily crude. The word 'affair' would have worked just as well.

[martin II]

really? then little man, post testimony or a link to any testimony that shows "Nicole did him for a while almost up to the time she was murdered. Against Coras advice to stop." no one expects you to post to 'satisfy' me and I could care less if I'm important to your 'concerns' (whatever the 'ell that means) but you continue to disparage the victims in this case.

weezer

Your name calling in not in keeping with Williams request that we improve the posting for the benefit of the community. But it seems that you could care less about his request or the community as long as you can sprew your anger and hatred. :no:

[martin II]

martin, I don't think you get that the phrase you used to describe the relationship between Nicole and Marcus Allen was unnecessarily crude. The word 'affair' would have worked just as well.

That depends.
What happened is what some would call low down back stabbing street action of a friend. So my choice of words was appropreate as you might say.imo:cool:

[tv]

That depends.
What happened is what some would call low down back stabbing street action of a friend. So my choice of words was appropreate as you might say.imo:cool: Do you also feel that Marcus Allen was a low down backstabber? The only person out of this group I recall that performed any stabbing motions was Simpson when he stabbed Ron and Nicole to death.

martin, OJ Simpson was unfaithful throughout their entire marriage and he admits it. His excuse? "You don't know what it's like to be OJ" Do you consider him to be a low down backstabber for cheating on Nicole?

[martin II]

Q: But did Nicole discuss with you her concerns about whether she would run into problems with physical abuse or violence if she got back with OJ. Simpson?

A: She never-she never talked to me about that.

Q: Not once?

A: Not once.

Q: But you knew her way as far back as May of 1989, correct?

A: Yes.

Q:-Nicole? And you knew that she was unhappy in her marriage-

A: Not '89. I knew her then, yeah, but the time that I really knew her was when she got separated from OJ. So it was in the later part of '91.

Q: And Nicole told you that one of the things that caused her to end her relationship or her marriage with OJ. Simpson was the beating she received in 1989. Correct?

A: No, she didn't tell me that.

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: She told you that from that point on, she wanted out of the relationship. Correct?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: No. She was just tired of everything already, the womanizing, the-pretty much everything. That's what she said. And also she already was having an affair with [Name Deleted]. She found this guy, and they had been going out.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: She was having that affair while she was still married and living at Rockingham. Correct?

A: Yes, Yes.

Q: Before she moved out of Rockingham, had Nicole told you about the New Year's Eve beating in 1989?

A: No.

Q: You only learned about it after she moved out?

A: Yes. Yes, she told me.

Q: After she moved out?

A: After she moved out, yeah.

Q: Okay. So when she decided to end her marriage and move out, she discussed that with you. Right?

A: When she-yes.

Q: And she discussed the fact that she was having an affair with Alessandro, with you. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: When did that affair begin to your knowledge?

A: To my knowledge? I don't know. When I-when we got really close, she already said it's been going on and she's thinking of moving in with this guy, so I'm not sure as to the time frame. It could be six months.

Q: Six months before she actually moved out?

A: Yeah.

[martin II]

Do you also feel that Marcus Allen was a low down backstabber? The only person out of this group I recall that performed any stabbing motions was Simpson when he stabbed Ron and Nicole to death.

martin, OJ Simpson was unfaithful throughout their entire marriage and he admits it. His excuse? "You don't know what it's like to be OJ" Do you consider him to be a low down backstabber for cheating on Nicole?

I believe M Allen was what you call him. Especially since he was supposed to be ojs friend and nicole was supposed to be a good friend to his wife.
Oj was a womanizer for sure.But that does not cover over that Nicole did the same kind of back stabbing to M Allens wife that thought that Nicole was her friend. The woman tried to help nicole get her business going by allowing her to decorate her home and nicole had a AFFAIR with her to be husband.
What do you call that? oj only found about it after the murders.imo

[martin II]

Q: Did you discuss Nicole's affair with OJ. before Nicole left the house?

A: No.

Q: And what about afterwards?

A: Afterwards?

Q: Yes.

A: No.

Q: Didn't OJ. ask you about the affair?

A: Yes, but I denied it.

Q: When did he ask you?

A: Even during the time - the whole time that they were trying to reconcile-I mean, they tried to reconcile, and even the time when he was trying to understand why she wanted to get out of the marriage.

Q: Throughout that time period he would ask you-

A: Yeah.

Q: -whether Nicole had an affair?

A: Why did she want to move out, what was the reason, and, you know, he said, "Is she having an affair?" I said no.

Q: Didn't he make some comment to you about Alessandro to the effect that he's drinking his champagne and eating his caviar?

A: Yes. See, he suspected that-he suspected that she was having an affair with [Name Deleted], and he asked me, he says, "Are they having an affair?"

I said, "No. They're just friends." And he says, "Well, someone's eating the caviar and champagne every time I leave." So he made that comment, yes.

Q: I see. But you didn't tell him about the affair.

A: I denied the affair. I said they were just friends.

Q: Now, how often in the beginning

A: Because Nicole made-because Nicole told me, "Don't ever, whatever happens, don't ever tell OJ. that I had an affair before I left Rockingham," and I-I made a promise to her.

Q: After Nicole moved out of the house, she continued to see Alessandro?

A: I'm sorry. What?

Q: After Nicole moved out of Rockingham, did she continue to see Allessandro?

A: Yes.

[martin II]

Contrary to what some have believed, it seems that nicole did have an affair
when she was married to oj and living at rockingham.hhhmmmmm
That is what Cora did and she became a w*ore for doing it.

[tv]

I believe M Allen was what you call him. Especially since he was supposed to be ojs friend and nicole was supposed to be a good friend to his wife.
Oj was a womanizer for sure.But that does not cover over that Nicole did the same kind of back stabbing to M Allens wife that thought that Nicole was her friend. The woman tried to help nicole get her business going by allowing her to decorate her home and nicole had a AFFAIR with her to be husband.
What do you call that? oj only found about it after the murders.imoThat's odd. This is from Daniel Petrocelli's book:

In his deposition, Simpson said Nicole told him she'd had an affair with Marcus in 1993, and that they'd had sex.

[martin II]

That's odd. This is from Daniel Petrocelli's book:

In his deposition, Simpson said Nicole told him she'd had an affair with Marcus in 1993, and that they'd had sex.

I think that i read that oj said he only found out after nicoled murder and he didn't believe it at first.
I guess it does not matter when he found out . What matters is that Nicole betrayed her friend and oj and Marcus betrayed his wife and oj.Of all the men she had why pick Marcus.

[weezer]

I think that i read that oj said he only found out after nicoled murder and he didn't believe it at first.
I guess it does not matter when he found out . What matters is that Nicole betrayed her friend and oj and Marcus betrayed his wife and oj.Of all the men she had why pick Marcus.

allen has always denied an affair and there is no one that ever saw them together.

[martin II]

That's odd. This is from Daniel Petrocelli's book:

In his deposition, Simpson said Nicole told him she'd had an affair with Marcus in 1993, and that they'd had sex.


tv
you are correct. Nicole told oj about herself and Allens affair/

Q: And do you know whether he ever confronted Marcus Allen about Nicole's dating him.'

A: I-yes, I think the two of them talked.

Q: And how do you know that?

A: Because Nicole told me and OJ. told me.

Q: Tell me what OJ. told you about that talk.

A: That they talked and that Marcus Allen apologized. That's pretty much, you know-

Q: When did OJ. tell you that?

A: Around-it was around that tune when Nicole told-when Nicole told OJ. about the affair, so say April, May, June, because they were already playing golf already, and then Marcus' wedding took place at Rockingham.

Q: Did OJ. tell you he was unhappy when he learned about that affair?

A: Of course, yeah. He was shocked, yeah.

He was shocked

[martin II]

A: Yes, they were both interested in trying to work things out. See, Nicole didn't want a divorce. She just wanted a separation. OJ. wanted a divorce, and so-

Q: Why did OJ. want a divorce on the one hand and on the other hand put his marriage back together?

MR. BAKER: Speculation.

THE WITNESS: Well, because, see, to him, if she wants to continue having men in her life, OJ. said, "Well, if that's what she wants, that's what she wants, and we get divorced." But, see, Nicole just wanted a separation because she just wanted to know what was going on in her life.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: So OJ. told you that if Nicole wanted to date men, then he wanted a divorce?

A: Oh, no, no, no, no. He says, you know, - "you want a separation, then we get divorced. That's it. It's over."

Q: So OJ. told you that if Nicole wanted a separation, then he wanted a divorce, but he did not want to have a separation.

A: Yes.

Q: Is that what you're saying?

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: But he told you that he was prepared to go back in the marriage, but no legal separation, get back together

A: Yes.

Q: -live in the same house.

A: Right.

Q: And Nicole told you that that was not acceptable to her. Correct? She wanted a separation.

A: She wanted a separation, yes.

Q: Okay. And after [Name Deleted], who did Nicole next have a relationship with?

A: [Name Deleted].

Q: And after [Name Deleted]?

A: [Name Deleted]-I mean [Name Deleted].

Q: And after [Name Deleted]?

A: [Name Deleted]? [Name Deleted].

Q: [Name Deleted]?

A: [Name Deleted], you know, the guy, the Cabo.

Q: That's the next year, though. Right?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Correct? She had a relationship with [Name Deleted] in 1992-

A: Yeah.

Q:-and into 1993. Right?

A: Uh-huh.

MR. KRAMER: Is that a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Wait. Could you repeat the question? I want to make sure-

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: I think you jumped a year on me.

A: Yeah, I'm getting confused now.

Q: Okay. After [Name Deleted] she then dated [Name Deleted], and that was the Christmas of '92 into January of '93. Correct?

A: '93, correct, yes.

Q: And after [Name Deleted] she went back with Mr. Simpson. Correct?

A: Yes, around March, yes.

[martin II]

allen has always denied an affair and there is no one that ever saw them together.

A: In between also, when she left- when she went to move to Gretna Green, that's when the relationship with Marcus Allen started. You know, whenever Marcus Allen was in town, she saw Marcus.

Q: She saw Marcus Allen almost immediately when she moved into the Gretna Green-

A: Not right away, no.

Q: She moved in January of '93 or- excuse me-January of 1992 or thereabouts.

A: Uh-huh. Yes.

Q: That was the first place she moved into out of Rockingham. Correct?

A: Right, Uh-huh.

Q: And you are saying not too long thereafter she began to see Marcus Allen?

A: Right.

Q: Okay. Did she see him continuously through the year of 1992?

A: Not continuously. Whenever he was around, whenever he was in town.

Q: And did there come a time when she stopped seeing Marcus Allen?

A: Yes.

[weezer]

A: In between also, when she left- when she went to move to Gretna Green, that's when the relationship with Marcus Allen started. You know, whenever Marcus Allen was in town, she saw Marcus.

Q: She saw Marcus Allen almost immediately when she moved into the Gretna Green-

A: Not right away, no.

Q: She moved in January of '93 or- excuse me-January of 1992 or thereabouts.

A: Uh-huh. Yes.

Q: That was the first place she moved into out of Rockingham. Correct?

A: Right, Uh-huh.

Q: And you are saying not too long thereafter she began to see Marcus Allen?

A: Right.

Q: Okay. Did she see him continuously through the year of 1992?

A: Not continuously. Whenever he was around, whenever he was in town.

Q: And did there come a time when she stopped seeing Marcus Allen?

A: Yes.

I assume this is still snake's testimony?

[martin II]

Q: So when did she start to see Marcus Allen again?

A: You know, I can't-see, sometimes his name just popped out one time and goes, "He just called and I saw him."

I said, "Oh, really?" You know, so I really was not paying attention to the time frame.

Q: By this time Marcus Allen was married. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Marcus had gotten married at OJ. Simpson's house in August of 1993. Right?

A: June of 19--

Q: June of 1993. Right?

A: Right.

Q: Now, how long after June of 1993 did Nicole start seeing Marcus again?

A: I don't know. I don't know.

Q: Now, earlier you had told me that Nicole and OJ. had agreed to be monogamous when they decided to reconcile in April of '93. Right?

A: Right.

Q: And so as far as you know, Nicole breached that understanding and that agreement when she started to see Marcus Allen when he would come into town when OJ. would go out of town. Right?

A: Right.

Q: And is that the only example of that you knew of Nicole breaching that agreement with OJ. Simpson?

A: Yes.

Q: When Nicole would tell you that she would see Marcus, did she also tell you that she didn't want things to work out any longer with OJ. Simpson or that she was still going to try to do that?

A: Yes, she still wanted to work things out with-

Q: Well, did she tell you why then she was continuing to see Marcus Allen from time to time?

A: Well, Marcus Allen kept on coming on to her.

Q: Did they have a strong sexual attraction, Marcus Allen and Nicole?

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: Have you ever spoken to Marcus Allen about any of this?

A: No.

Q: When Nicole told you that she had messed around in Cabo with this guy named [Name Deleted], she also told you that at this point in time she didn't think things were going to work out with Mr. Simpson, right, and she was going to try to move on with her life?

A: She didn't say that yet. She said she's not ready to be with OJ. yet.

Q: I see. But she was going to still try to pretend that she was going to work things out with him. Right?

A: Right.

Q: But then later on when she came back a

while later, she told you that she was going to stop altogether. Right?

A: Yeah, right.

Q: And just so I'm clear on this, can you give me a date when that-when she told you that it was over for good?

A: That was when OJ. wrote that letter.

Q: Around that time?

A: Right.

Q: That's when she told you it's over for good?

A: She says, "I don't want to"-yes.

Q: Is that the first time that she told you that that was it; she wasn't going to try to work things out any longer with him.'

A: Yes.

[martin II]

I assume this is still snake's testimony?

In your world everyone is a snake that don't agree with you. But this is Coras testimony.Like it or not.
I don't know why you are trying to say Niciole did not have a AFFAIR with M Allen.That makes no sense since most know she did.Your in accurate posting is why i post her testimony.imo

[weezer]

In your world everyone is a snake that don't agree with you. But this is Coras testimony.Like it or not.
I don't know why you are trying to say Niciole did not have a AFFAIR with M Allen.That makes no sense since most know she did.Your in accurate posting is why i post her testimony.imo

so -- you believe everything cora testified/said?

who is 'most'?

[William Anthony]

There are a complex range of human emotions and like it or not, try as we will, we are not able to control what we feel, whether it be a reaction based on a feeling of rejection, anger or to the death of a loved one. Everyone does not react in the same way, which is why God's human garden is so wonderful to observe and be a part of. We should not be so hasty as to ridicule one of God's creations but open our hearts to find the understanding brought about through a mind receptive to the idea that, regardless of what we think our reaction would be, everyone was endowed with certain capacities and that may well be their way to suffer the burden God has seen fit to place on them. With that said, post away.

[weezer]

I am posting testimony. you may continue to post your very small opinions. imo:cool:

martin, what is the date of that testimony?

[William Anthony]

Weezer,

My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6. Eerie isn't it?

[tv]

I think that i read that oj said he only found out after nicoled murder and he didn't believe it at first.
I guess it does not matter when he found out . What matters is that Nicole betrayed her friend and oj and Marcus betrayed his wife and oj.Of all the men she had why pick Marcus.
Are you saying that Simpson lied in his deposition?

[weezer]

Weezer,

My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6. Eerie isn't it?

dude -- I think you're tripping! :biggrin:

your post was triple 6 and my reply was 667. I don't know but in my world, 666 is followed by 667. :eek:

[William Anthony]

dude -- I think you're tripping! :biggrin:

your post was triple 6 and my reply was 667. I don't know but in my world, 666 is followed by 667. :eek:

I did not say the number of your post that was the response/reply. Check the board showing the title of the thread and you will see that the number of "replies" is always one less than the number of the post. See what I mean about being too judgmental?

[weezer]

I did not say the number of your post that was the response/reply. Check the board showing the title of the thread and you will see that the number of "replies" is always one less than the number of the post. See what I mean about being too judgmental?

"My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6."

counselor your post does not mention 'title of the thread' or 'number of replies'. See what I mean about tripping? ;)

[William Anthony]

"My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6."

counselor your post does not mention 'title of the thread' or 'number of replies'. See what I mean about tripping? ;)

Moderator in Training,

No, I see that you made a rush to judgment without seeking a clarification. You will note that I said I did not mention "Your post number" and did deny I said my post number. You will also not that when I speak of a post to which I responded I usually use the word response. Since you did not make a multiple response and the only place on the board, where the word "replies" is used is where I pointed out to you. The singular of replies is reply. Now that I have explained it, yes, I can see where you are tripping. ;) :cool:

[weezer]

Moderator in Training,

No, I see that you made a rush to judgment without seeking a clarification. You will note that I said I did not mention "Your post number" and did deny I said my post number. You will also not that when I speak of a post to which I responded I usually use the word response. Since you did not make a multiple response and the only place on the board, where the word "replies" is used is where I pointed out to you. The singular of replies is reply. Now that I have explained it, yes, I can see where you are tripping. ;) :cool:

counselor in training,

your first post: "My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6"

your second post: "I did not say the number of your post that was the response/reply. Check the board showing the title of the thread and you will see that the number of "replies" is always one less than the number of the post. See what I mean about being too judgmental?"

your third post: "No, I see that you made a rush to judgment without seeking a clarification. You will note that I said I did not mention "Your post number" and did deny I said my post number. You will also not that when I speak of a post to which I responded I usually use the word response. Since you did not make a multiple response and the only place on the board, where the word "replies" is used is where I pointed out to you. The singular of replies is reply. Now that I have explained it, yes, I can see where you are tripping."

dude -- you're still tripping. :eek:

[William Anthony]

counselor in training,

your first post: "My post number was triple 6 but your reply was triple 6"

your second post: "I did not say the number of your post that was the response/reply. Check the board showing the title of the thread and you will see that the number of "replies" is always one less than the number of the post. See what I mean about being too judgmental?"

your third post: "No, I see that you made a rush to judgment without seeking a clarification. You will note that I said I did not mention "Your post number" and did deny I said my post number. You will also not that when I speak of a post to which I responded I usually use the word response. Since you did not make a multiple response and the only place on the board, where the word "replies" is used is where I pointed out to you. The singular of replies is reply. Now that I have explained it, yes, I can see where you are tripping."

dude -- you're still tripping. :eek:

Woman,

I should know better than to try to argue with a woman. This isn't Burger King but, today, you can have it your way.

[martin II]

A: Yes, before Cabo, because we went shopping. Yeah, March of 1994. Nicole and I were shopping for clothes at Brentwood Gardens, and these two guys kept following us, and one of the guys introduced herself-himself to Nicole, and that was [Name Deleted].

Q: And who was the other person?

A: I don't know.

Q: Was it Ron Goldman?

A: I don't know.

Q: By this time you had never met Ron Goldman. Right?

A: No.

Q: And Nicole hadn't either to you knowledge. Right?

A: No.

Q: And what then happened between Mike Davis and Nicole?

A: Mike-Nicole was very attracted to Michael, and she told me that she liked that guy.

"He's really cute." So that was-and she kind of pursued Michael, but Michael-when Michael found out that she was OJ.'s ex-wife, that's when, you know, she - you know, he stopped-kinda like backed off a little bit, but Nicole still continued pursuing [Name Deleted].

Q: And how old was [Name Deleted]?

A: Michael's 24.

Q: What did he do?

A: He's a trainer.

Q: Where?

A: At The Gym.

Q: That's the name of a health- -The Gym. -club in Brentwood called The Gym.'

A: The Gym.

Q: Okay. And he's a trainer there?

A: Yes.

Q: Did she have a romantic relationship with [Name Deleted]?

A: Yes.

Q: How long did that last?

A: Not really a romantic relationship, but-

Q: They had sex?

A: Is that what you call it, sex, oral sex? I don't know. What do you call it? I don't know.

MR. KELLY: Push that a little bit, Dan.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Yeah, I would call oral sex sex, if that's what you're asking me.

A: Okay.

Q: They had oral sex

A: Yes.

Q: --is that what you're telling us?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And how do you know that?

[martin II]

Are you saying that Simpson lied in his deposition?

TV
I posted that you were correct as Cora testified that niciole told oj that she had been doing M Allenn for some time and that oj and Allen talked about it.

[martin II]

she was a wh*re -- anyone married who sleeps around is a wh*re. I don't care if it's the husband or the wife and I don't care who they're sleeping with -- Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief.

hmmm -- I think I'm only repeating what I've read when I refer to the grocery boy as a 'boy' and not a 'man'.

A: Because Nicole made-because Nicole told me, "Don't ever, whatever happens, don't ever tell OJ. that I had an affair before I left Rockingham," and I-I made a promise to her.

Q: After Nicole moved out of the house, she continued to see Alessandro?

A: I'm sorry. What?

Q: After Nicole moved out of Rockingham, did she continue to see Allessandro?

A: Yes.

[martin II]

weezer
Based on testimony Nicole did the same as cora while still married and living at home.
Do you attatch the same title to Nicole as you do to Cora?

[martin II]

Here is testimony on the book deal

Q: Okay. Now, what is the reason that you broke off your agreement with Brooke Skulski?

A: First, she wanted a sensationalized book, and I said, "I don't want a sensationalized book."

She says, "Cora, you have to expose yourself. You've got to talk. Nobody knows you."

That's why I ended up doing that, because she said, "You've got to do something or else nobody"-no publisher will want your book because nobody knows who Cora Fischman is."

And I said no, and that's why I kept on refusing to-I hold onto that one-year contract with her, but I told her, "I'll just put the book on hold," because I didn't want a sensational book. She wanted a sensational book, and I said I wanted to humanize Nicole; I wanted people to know who Nicole was. That's all I was-that was my intention if I wanted to ever write a book.

Q: Okay. And that was unacceptable to her?

A: She believes that if you do something like this in the tabloid, you would-people will know who I am, and this is exactly what she wanted me to do.

Q: She wanted you to do the Star Magazine article, and you did so. Right?

A: I did so, yeah, but I insisted only if it's a good article. I will not do anything that would harm.

Q: And after you did this article, what then caused you to stop working with Brooke Skulski on the book?

A: One was because I was subpoenaed, so when you're subpoenaed in the criminal, you can't do anything; you can't talk about the case or anything like that. So that one. Number two, she was very opinionated, and the voice that was coming from her, I didn't like the tone of her voice. It was just too-she-it was more a tabloid, and I didn't want a sensationalized book. I wanted a book that would memorialize my friend. That's all I wanted.

Q: Is-your lawsuit against the National Enquirer, does that have anything to do with Brooke Skulski?

A: Yes.

Q: What does that have to do with Brooke?

A: Because of that picture. She is the one, you know, she said, you know, "We need pictures."

I said, "Well, what kind of pictures? I don't want"-and I said, "Okay, we'll take this picture. It's been in the National Enquirer, I said, "Yeah, my housekeeper stole that picture," and that's when the lawsuit came.

Q: But you authorized the Star to print that picture. Right?

Was that picture included in the Star Magazine article?

A: Yeah. But they didn't put it on the first page, but they put it on the inside page, see, because they couldn't do that because at that time National Enquirer put it on the front page.

Q: Before this article came out, the National Enquirer printed-

A: No. The same week they had the same article. One was the Christmas story but with my picture on the National Enquirer. Whatever that family picture, National Enquirer put it on the front page and Star put it on the middle page.

Q: Did you agree to do an article for National Enquirer also?

A: No.

[martin II]

Nicole being upset over orenthal and paula still seeing each other has what to do with your crude post regarding Nicole and marcus allen?

she was seeing marcus before her divoice and after marcus was married.

[martin II]

there is NO evidence or testimony that Nicole had 'several' or even one affair while she and orenthal were together.

IMO, reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person.

not true weezer.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: She was having that affair while she was still married and living at Rockingham. Correct?

A: Yes, Yes.

Q: Before she moved out of Rockingham, had Nicole told you about the New Year's Eve beating in 1989?

A: No.

Q: You only learned about it after she moved out?

A: Yes. Yes, she told me.

Q: After she moved out?

A: After she moved out, yeah.

Q: Okay. So when she decided to end her marriage and move out, she discussed that with you. Right?

A: When she-yes.

Q: And she discussed the fact that she was having an affair with Alessandro, with you. Right?

A: Yes.

[weezer]

weezer
Based on testimony Nicole did the same as cora while still married and living at home.
Do you attatch the same title to Nicole as you do to Cora?

I've asked for the date of this testimony. are you going to give it?

[limakey]

Cora's affair had nothing to do with the murders. Nicole's affair may not have had anything to do with the murders. However, we do not know if Ron's affair had anything to do with the murders.

Yes, I'm sure Cora and Nicole did have their fair share of disagreements, however, it appears their friendship was much stronger then their disagreements. Best friends often tell each other what they don't to hear, best friends don't always take each other's advice. IMO.

However, why isn't anyone focusing on why Cora was not surprised that Nicole was murdered and that another person was with her, how did she know it had to be Ron or another waiter?

I believe she testified that Faye told her about Ron coming over that night in the limo on the way to wake or the funeral---however, there is no way Faye could have known this, unless she talked to Nicole after she spoke to her mother and called and asked for Ron.

Why would Dr. Ameli lie about her break in? Why would she stage a break in if her most valuable testimony was that she spoke to Nicole that night and that Nicole was so upset, that the Dr. recommended she call a friend to sit with her?

Why would Dr. Ameli lie?

[martin II]

Here is the testimony of Fays claim about Nicole/Ron.


Q: And what she told you is around 9:30 p.m. that she, Faye Resnick, had a telephone call with Nicole on the evening of June 12th. Right?

A: Right.

Q: And that the two of them, Nicole and Faye, were giggling in this telephone conversation --

A: Yes.

Q: -- right? And Nicole at the time was in Bundy and Faye was at the treatment center. Right?

A: Right.

Q: And then she told you that Nicole said Ron Goldman was coming over to her place?

A: Faye told me.

Q: Right. That --

A: Yes.

Q: -- Nicole told her that Ron Goldman was on his way over to see her, Nicole?

A: Right.

Q: For what purpose?

A: They were giggling that they were gonna do it.

Q: That Nicole and Ron Goldman were going to have sex that evening?

A: I don't know if it was sex, but they said they were going to do it.

Q: What does "do it" mean? What is the "it"?

A: Well, if you think sex -- I don't know. I wasn't there.

Q: It's not what I think. What did you understand her to mean when she said that to you?

A: Well, what Faye told me was exactly what I told you, that they were going to do it that evening.

Q: What did you understand that to mean?

A: Probably they were going to have a -- they were going to have sex.

Q: Okay. And is that all that Faye told you?

A: She told me that Nicole was going to see if he's good --

Q: Good at sex?

A: Right, if he's good in bed. Then when she comes out of the rehab, that they were gonna do it.

Q: Who was going to do it?

A: The three of them.

Q: And when Faye told you that, did she indicate whether Nicole and she were joking about this or whether they were serious about this?

A: At that time I thought they were serious because they already have done it before with another guy, so...

Q: Now, you knew, of course, based on what Nicole herself had told you, that she had no sexual interest in Ron Goldman. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: So I assume --

---------

: She told me she was not attracted to Ron Goldman, but, you know --

Q: But what?

A: That "Ron keeps on verbally seducing me. I don't know what to do with him."

Q: Nicole told you that Ron kept verbally seducing her?

A: Right.

Q: When did Nicole tell you that?

A: Those weeks that Ron was calling him -- calling her. I'm sorry.

Q: What did Nicole tell you that Ron was saying to her?

A: I don't remember. I mean verbally seducing, you know, like she said, "I can't wait to be with you, both naked," and this and that, and Nicole was getting tickled by what Ron was telling her.

Q: Did Nicole tell you that she was changing her attitude towards Ron and that she was considering having a relationship with him?

A: No.

[Kate Sachel]

We know of one fling Cora had we know of several Nicole had and the activity with fay and the bar hopping thing. Both are entitled to whatever they weanted to do. But if we talk about one, Cora, we talk about the other Nicole.imo

do you consider Cora a W*ORE?

Were Nicole's flings while she was married or after her seperation and divorce from OJ?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Human nature and emotion are often times unexplainable and unforseeable.

I don't believe that Cora's affair makes her less of a person, and certainly doesn't make her a wh*re. There are so many reasons why we can be led in a direction that at one time we may have found to be reprehensible, and affairs are tricky that way. I do believe a difference lies in the person who constantly cheats, and the person whose life at home has perhaps become unbearable and overwhelming and, without planning, finds themselves drawn to an individual who restores fire to their soul and passion in their heart.

It is cowardly yes, but I don't believe it means that person loses all character and integrity. I have been a coward before in other ways; I imagine it takes alot of strength,when your entire life is invested in one thing and that is all you know, to stand up and let the truth be known that your happiness perhaps no longer lies at home and it is time to seek something different. For many woman, an affair is a catalyst ... the driving force that allows them to reclaim themselves and their happiness. I don't judge that.

No, I don't see Cora as less because of her affair. I see her as less because of several other reasons that have nothing to do with her happiness in her marriage.

Kate

[martin II]

A: There was one day where after Nicole and I had coffee I said, "What happened?"

She said, "Well, I just saw Brett," and then that same day she saw Marcus Allen.

Q: Did she call you after that day to tell you that she had seen Marcus or -- I'm a little confused.

A: No. In the afternoon. We saw each other in the afternoon.

Q: And she told you in that same day she had seen both Brett and Marcus?

A: Yes.

Q: Together or separately?

A: Separately.

Q: And what did she say about seeing Brett?

That she had had sex with him?

A: Well, she didn't go -- she just said that words, "I saw Brett today."

Q: Where? At her --

A: At her apartment, at her condo.

Q: And where did she say she had seen Marcus Allen?

A: I assumed that same place.

Q: And when was this day when she told you that she had seen both Brett and Marcus Allen on the same day?

A: When?

[martin II]

Q: Now, isn't it true that you had conversations with Faye Resnick about writing a book together after Nicole's death?

A: Not writing a book together, no.

Q: And no discussions with her about collaborating on a book --

A: No.

Q: -- or writing books together?

A: No.

Q: Okay. Did you have discussions with Faye that you would be writing a book?

A: No.

Q: Have any conversadons at all with Faye Resnick after Nicole's death about writing of books?

A: She told me that she's planning on writing a book, so that was the conversation.

Q: What did you say?

A: What did I say?

Q: (Nods head.)

A: I don't remember.

[SlowHandSam]

Human nature and emotion are often times unexplainable and unforseeable.

I don't believe that Cora's affair makes her less of a person, and certainly doesn't make her a wh*re. There are so many reasons why we can be led in a direction that at one time we may have found to be reprehensible, and affairs are tricky that way. I do believe a difference lies in the person who constantly cheats, and the person whose life at home has perhaps become unbearable and overwhelming and, without planning, finds themselves drawn to an individual who restores fire to their soul and passion in their heart.

It is cowardly yes, but I don't believe it means that person loses all character and integrity. I have been a coward before in other ways; I imagine it takes alot of strength,when your entire life is invested in one thing and that is all you know, to stand up and let the truth be known that your happiness perhaps no longer lies at home and it is time to seek something different. For many woman, an affair is a catalyst ... the driving force that allows them to reclaim themselves and their happiness. I don't judge that.

No, I don't see Cora as less because of her affair. I see her as less because of several other reasons that have nothing to do with her happiness in her marriage.

Kate

Kate, with the chance I'll be called a parrot, I wanted to say 'well said'. I agree that this doesn't make any of them a wh*re, that's why my reply said it's a far more derogatory term for me when I do use it.

I believe that people have indiscretions for a myriad of reasons. I take issue with those who are habitual offenders while in a relationship that they claim to be "happy" and all that. For those who are in a doomed relationship, sometimes the "newness" of someone else does spark something in the pit of your soul.

I don't find fault with her for having relationships after she and OJ split even though they were on-again, off-again cycles. She had been in an abusive relationship for a very long time and I don't find fault with wanting to be with someone who put her on a pedestal or who would "chase after" her and make her feel wanted (in a non-psychotic way, of course). I believe, like most women who were/are in controlling abusive relationships, the woman's self esteem, worth and confidence is so diminished that when you open that window to something new ... the light floods in and you thirst for it even more. If that make sense at all.

To me, it doesn't matter who she had relationships with, quite honestly. I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned with her personal intimate life and no one is pouncing on OJ and his indiscretions?

[SlowHandSam]

A: There was one day where after Nicole and I had coffee I said, "What happened?"

She said, "Well, I just saw Brett," and then that same day she saw Marcus Allen.

Q: Did she call you after that day to tell you that she had seen Marcus or -- I'm a little confused.

A: No. In the afternoon. We saw each other in the afternoon.

Q: And she told you in that same day she had seen both Brett and Marcus?

A: Yes.

Q: Together or separately?

A: Separately.

Q: And what did she say about seeing Brett?

That she had had sex with him?

A: Well, she didn't go -- she just said that words, "I saw Brett today."

Q: Where? At her --

A: At her apartment, at her condo.

Q: And where did she say she had seen Marcus Allen?

A: I assumed that same place.

Q: And when was this day when she told you that she had seen both Brett and Marcus Allen on the same day?

A: When?

what is the date of that testimony, please?

Additionally - you are jumping to a conclusion that she had intimate relations with Brett and/or Marcus. The testimony does not support that.

[martin II]

Kate, with the chance I'll be called a parrot, I wanted to say 'well said'. I agree that this doesn't make any of them a wh*re, that's why my reply said it's a far more derogatory term for me when I do use it.

I believe that people have indiscretions for a myriad of reasons. I take issue with those who are habitual offenders while in a relationship that they claim to be "happy" and all that. For those who are in a doomed relationship, sometimes the "newness" of someone else does spark something in the pit of your soul.

I don't find fault with her for having relationships after she and OJ split even though they were on-again, off-again cycles. She had been in an abusive relationship for a very long time and I don't find fault with wanting to be with someone who put her on a pedestal or who would "chase after" her and make her feel wanted (in a non-psychotic way, of course). I believe, like most women who were/are in controlling abusive relationships, the woman's self esteem, worth and confidence is so diminished that when you open that window to something new ... the light floods in and you thirst for it even more. If that make sense at all.

To me, it doesn't matter who she had relationships with, quite honestly. I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned with her personal intimate life and no one is pouncing on OJ and his indiscretions?




This was before she and oj SPLIT.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: She was having that affair while she was still married and living at Rockingham. Correct?

A: Yes, Yes.

Q: Before she moved out of Rockingham, had Nicole told you about the New Year's Eve beating in 1989?

A: No.

Q: You only learned about it after she moved out?

A: Yes. Yes, she told me.

Q: After she moved out?

A: After she moved out, yeah.

Q: Okay. So when she decided to end her marriage and move out, she discussed that with you. Right?

A: When she-yes.

Q: And she discussed the fact that she was having an affair with Alessandro, with you. Right?

A: Yes.


----------------------------

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, with the chance I'll be called a parrot, I wanted to say 'well said'. I agree that this doesn't make any of them a wh*re, that's why my reply said it's a far more derogatory term for me when I do use it.

I believe that people have indiscretions for a myriad of reasons. I take issue with those who are habitual offenders while in a relationship that they claim to be "happy" and all that. For those who are in a doomed relationship, sometimes the "newness" of someone else does spark something in the pit of your soul.

I don't find fault with her for having relationships after she and OJ split even though they were on-again, off-again cycles. She had been in an abusive relationship for a very long time and I don't find fault with wanting to be with someone who put her on a pedestal or who would "chase after" her and make her feel wanted (in a non-psychotic way, of course). I believe, like most women who were/are in controlling abusive relationships, the woman's self esteem, worth and confidence is so diminished that when you open that window to something new ... the light floods in and you thirst for it even more. If that make sense at all.

To me, it doesn't matter who she had relationships with, quite honestly. I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned with her personal intimate life and no one is pouncing on OJ and his indiscretions?

Take a look at those individuals who don't pounce on his indiscretions and you'll see that it's those who seem to feel that in an effort to "prove" OJ innocent of murder or abuse means that they musn't allow the idea that he is a human being with flaws like every human being has.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Take a look at those individuals who don't pounce on his indiscretions and you'll see that it's those who seem to feel that in an effort to "prove" OJ innocent of murder or abuse means that they musn't allow the idea that he is a human being with flaws like every human being has.

Kate

Additionally, I've not yet understood why the NG's focus on her personal life as an excuse or reasoning of why she was murdered and not by OJ. I don't believe her personal and intimate life has any bearing on the fact that she was butchered or murdered.

For me ... I think, if nothing else, it would lend more weight to OJ having committed the murders than anyone else since he was controlling and abusive of her.

It's that "if I can't have you no one will ..." mentality that I do believe OJ possesses.

[martin II]

what is the date of that testimony, please?

Additionally - you are jumping to a conclusion that she had intimate relations with Brett and/or Marcus. The testimony does not support that.

SHS

Wrong. I have not jumped to any conclusions other than this is testimony of Cora Fishman.

[Kate Sachel]

Additionally, I've not yet understood why the NG's focus on her personal life as an excuse or reasoning of why she was murdered and not by OJ. I don't believe her personal and intimate life has any bearing on the fact that she was butchered or murdered.

For me ... I think, if nothing else, it would lend more weight to OJ having committed the murders than anyone else since he was controlling and abusive of her.

It's that "if I can't have you no one will ..." mentality that I do believe OJ possesses.

I understand it, I just don't buy into it. For all of the talk regarding the individuals that Nicole spent time with in the year prior to her death, or the talk that her life was out of control, I have yet to see one person in her and OJ's lives or on this forum that has been able to offer one single piece of evidence to show that Nicole was into drug dealing or any other dangerous activity.

As far as I can see, the only trouble Nicole was in is that of many women in her situation. In having ended a relationship of seventeen years, she was attempting to regain her youth and control of her choices which seemed to lead to only more confusion and uncertainty for her. she was trying to find her way, and apparently getting lost every now and again.

Kate

[martin II]

Additionally, I've not yet understood why the NG's focus on her personal life as an excuse or reasoning of why she was murdered and not by OJ. I don't believe her personal and intimate life has any bearing on the fact that she was butchered or murdered.

For me ... I think, if nothing else, it would lend more weight to OJ having committed the murders than anyone else since he was controlling and abusive of her.

It's that "if I can't have you no one will ..." mentality that I do believe OJ possesses.

OJs flaws have been well documented and discussed.If we are looking for the truth of the relationship then the life styles of both Oj and Niciole has to be examined.It is not possible to examine one and not the other if one is interested in the truth about both.
That is my opinion.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

A: There was one day where after Nicole and I had coffee I said, "What happened?"

She said, "Well, I just saw Brett," and then that same day she saw Marcus Allen.

Q: Did she call you after that day to tell you that she had seen Marcus or -- I'm a little confused.

A: No. In the afternoon. We saw each other in the afternoon.

Q: And she told you in that same day she had seen both Brett and Marcus?

A: Yes.

Q: Together or separately?

A: Separately.

Q: And what did she say about seeing Brett?

That she had had sex with him?

A: Well, she didn't go -- she just said that words, "I saw Brett today."

Q: Where? At her --

A: At her apartment, at her condo.

Q: And where did she say she had seen Marcus Allen?

A: I assumed that same place.

Q: And when was this day when she told you that she had seen both Brett and Marcus Allen on the same day?

A: When?

What is the relevance in this? Are you attempting to smear her further by trying to paint a picture that she slept with two men on the same day? I don't see that in the testimony, I only see that she said she saw both men that day.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

OJs flaws have been well documented and discussed.If we are looking for the truth of the relationship then the life styles of both Oj and Niciole has to be examined.It is not possible to examine one and not the other if one is interested in the truth about both.
That is my opinion.
martin II

Oh my goodness, if you can call your consistent denial of his flaws a discussion then I guess they have. The same with your consistent shifting the blame to Nicole; then there definitely has been a whole lot of discussion.

Kate

[weezer]

SHS

Wrong. I have not jumped to any conclusions other than this is testimony of Cora Fishman.

the board rules are that if a poster is stating fact, when asked, the poster must supply a link. I am requesting a link or at least the date of this testimony.

[SlowHandSam]

the board rules are that if a poster is stating fact, when asked, the poster must supply a link. I am requesting a link or at least the date of this testimony.

http://walraven.org/simpson/cf_depo1.html
Cora Fischman Deposition of March 19, 1996

Q: And she told you she was interested in this Brett person. Right?

A: She was not interested with this Brett person, no. She really didn't care about the guy.

Q: But she wanted to see him.

A: She just wanted to have that --

Q: Freedom to date.

A: Right. She just wanted, yeah, to see the guy with Faye.

Q: Did she tell you that she wanted to date other men as well?

A: No.

Q: Did she tell you what had caused her to decide to end her reconciliation process with Mr. Simpson?

A: She said that she was confused, that she still wants to -- she still wants -- she wanted the freedom, and that's about it.

Q: She wanted the freedom.

A: Right. She still wanted to go out with the girls.

Q: So those were the reasons: She wanted to go out with the girls and she wanted the freedom. Right?

A: Yeah, because O.J. will not allow him -- her to go out with girls and stuff like that if she'd go back to O.J.

Q: Okay. When you say "go back to O.J.," you mean move into Rockingham?

A: Exactly, right.

Q: Okay. So she then decided she wasn't prepared to move back into Rockingham and give up her freedom. Is that right?

A: Exactly.

this supports what Kate and I have stated that she was just trying to find her way and have some "fun" and freedom since OJ was controlling.

[martin II]

Q: You may answer. You were having a sexual relationship with Nicole during the month of May --

A: With Nicole, no, I was not having a sexual relationship with Nicole.

Q: -- with Terrence during the month of May of 1994. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And Nicole did not approve of it, and she told you that. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And she thought that it would ruin your family. Correct?

A: No, she didn't say that. She said that, "Be careful because Ron might find out."

Q: And if --

A: And I said to her, "You have to watch out with what you're doing," because at that time she was doing this threesome and she was having a lesbian affair with Faye, and I didn't approve of that. So that was what was happening.

So Terrence became my friend and my confidante at the time. That's why I became close to Terrence.

Q: And you slept at Terrence's home on the evening of June 11. Correct?

A: That a Saturday?

MR. KRAMER: Saturday night.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: At a time when you were still having a romantic affair with him. Right?

A: I think I was at home. It could be -- I don't know. Probably, yes. Oh, yes.

Q: This is the night when your husband was calling Nicole.

A: Yes, because we attend a wedding and he's going -- you know, I was afraid of him, so I went to Terrence. I said, you know. "I don't want to go home."

Q: Now, you said that Nicole didn't approve of what you were doing, and you didn't approve of what Nicole was doing.

A: Yes.

Q: But you don't really know what Nicole was doing. You had one conversation with her --

A: Well, she told me --

Q: Excuse me. You testified that you had one conversation --

MR. BAKER: That was a very major interruption.

MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't ask her a question.

MR. BAKER: Oh, you didn't?

MR. PETROCELLI: No.

MR. BAKER: Oh.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: You told me earlier that you only had one conversation with Nicole in which she mentioned this incident regarding --

A: Yes. She told me that over --

MR. KRAMER: Let him finish his question.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: And she didn't tell you that this was an ongoing thing with Faye.

A: Well, at that time I assumed it was an ongoing thing because she said that she did it with Brett three times, so -- and Faye was there a lot on Bundy, so I assumed that they were doing it.

Q: That was your assumption, right, that --

A: Faye confirmed it to me.

Q: Oh, Faye told --

A: After -- when Nicole died, she confirmed it to me that, yes, she was, and she was embarrassed about the whole thing.

Q: Faye confirmed to you that she was having a romantic relationship with Nicole on multiple occasions?

A: Not on multiple occasions --

Q: More than once?

A: -- but she did say that she had an affair with Nicole.

Q: More than one incident?

A: I don't know when they -- I don't know about that.

Q: Is it your testimony that Faye told you that there was more than one incident?

MR. BAKER: Badgering, argumentative. You're killing Dave --

THE WITNESS: More than once?

MR. BAKER: -- by stepping on her answers.

MR. PETROCELLI: I certainly don't want to do that.

THE WITNESS: You know what? I wasn't there, so -- I wasn't there.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: So you don't know.

MR. BAKER: Objection

THE WITNESS: I only -- I'm telling you only what Faye told me and what Nicole told me. So I don't know how many times they did. I mean, they didn't call me every time they did it, so...

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

[martin II]

the board rules are that if a poster is stating fact, when asked, the poster must supply a link. I am requesting a link or at least the date of this testimony.

I have already told you these post are from Coras deposition. It has been discussed many times and most know when she testified.

You have been asked any many time to give a link to your flase claim of "Pigeon toed foot prints" by at least two posters and you have refused.

[SlowHandSam]

Q: You may answer. You were having a sexual relationship with Nicole during the month of May --

A: With Nicole, no, I was not having a sexual relationship with Nicole.

Q: -- with Terrence during the month of May of 1994. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And Nicole did not approve of it, and she told you that. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And she thought that it would ruin your family. Correct?

A: No, she didn't say that. She said that, "Be careful because Ron might find out."

Q: And if --

A: And I said to her, "You have to watch out with what you're doing," because at that time she was doing this threesome and she was having a lesbian affair with Faye, and I didn't approve of that. So that was what was happening.

So Terrence became my friend and my confidante at the time. That's why I became close to Terrence.

Q: And you slept at Terrence's home on the evening of June 11. Correct?

A: That a Saturday?

MR. KRAMER: Saturday night.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: At a time when you were still having a romantic affair with him. Right?

A: I think I was at home. It could be -- I don't know. Probably, yes. Oh, yes.

Q: This is the night when your husband was calling Nicole.

A: Yes, because we attend a wedding and he's going -- you know, I was afraid of him, so I went to Terrence. I said, you know. "I don't want to go home."

Q: Now, you said that Nicole didn't approve of what you were doing, and you didn't approve of what Nicole was doing.

A: Yes.

Q: But you don't really know what Nicole was doing. You had one conversation with her --

A: Well, she told me --

Q: Excuse me. You testified that you had one conversation --

MR. BAKER: That was a very major interruption.

MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't ask her a question.

MR. BAKER: Oh, you didn't?

MR. PETROCELLI: No.

MR. BAKER: Oh.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: You told me earlier that you only had one conversation with Nicole in which she mentioned this incident regarding --

A: Yes. She told me that over --

MR. KRAMER: Let him finish his question.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: And she didn't tell you that this was an ongoing thing with Faye.

A: Well, at that time I assumed it was an ongoing thing because she said that she did it with Brett three times, so -- and Faye was there a lot on Bundy, so I assumed that they were doing it.

Q: That was your assumption, right, that --

A: Faye confirmed it to me.

Q: Oh, Faye told --

A: After -- when Nicole died, she confirmed it to me that, yes, she was, and she was embarrassed about the whole thing.

Q: Faye confirmed to you that she was having a romantic relationship with Nicole on multiple occasions?

A: Not on multiple occasions --

Q: More than once?

A: -- but she did say that she had an affair with Nicole.

Q: More than one incident?

A: I don't know when they -- I don't know about that.

Q: Is it your testimony that Faye told you that there was more than one incident?

MR. BAKER: Badgering, argumentative. You're killing Dave --

THE WITNESS: More than once?

MR. BAKER: -- by stepping on her answers.

MR. PETROCELLI: I certainly don't want to do that.

THE WITNESS: You know what? I wasn't there, so -- I wasn't there.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: So you don't know.

MR. BAKER: Objection

THE WITNESS: I only -- I'm telling you only what Faye told me and what Nicole told me. So I don't know how many times they did. I mean, they didn't call me every time they did it, so...

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

she can't even keep her story straight in this deposition on the 19th of March 1996. (see it's so simple to just add the date!)

She says 3 times, then asked if multiple she backtracks and says she doesn't know.

Assuming her friend is in an illicit affair with another is so crazy to me considering later in her testimony she confirms that Faye was kicked out her her home and was at Nicole's alot ...

Q: But you don't have any knowledge about how many nights she slept over at Nicole's house. Right?

A: No.

Q: Okay.

A: Well, I know she didn't have a place because Christian threw her out of the house, so she was finding a place to...

so because her husband threw her out and she was staying with a supposed friend, all the sudden it's a lesbian affair. Interesting assumptions.

[martin II]

I've asked for the date of this testimony. are you going to give it?

Do you stick by your position that a married woman that has a outside affair is a W*ore?


BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: She was having that affair while she was still married and living at Rockingham. Correct?

A: Yes, Yes.

Q: Before she moved out of Rockingham, had Nicole told you about the New Year's Eve beating in 1989?

A: No.

Q: You only learned about it after she moved out?

A: Yes. Yes, she told me.

Q: After she moved out?

A: After she moved out, yeah.

Q: Okay. So when she decided to end her marriage and move out, she discussed that with you. Right?

A: When she-yes.

Q: And she discussed the fact that she was having an affair with Alessandro, with you. Right?

A: Yes.

[martin II]

she can't even keep her story straight in this deposition on the 19th of March 1996. (see it's so simple to just add the date!)

She says 3 times, then asked if multiple she backtracks and says she doesn't know.

Assuming her friend is in an illicit affair with another is so crazy to me considering later in her testimony she confirms that Faye was kicked out her her home and was at Nicole's alot ...



so because her husband threw her out and she was staying with a supposed friend, all the sudden it's a lesbian affair. Interesting assumptions.


I don't think you read the testimony correctly.

[SlowHandSam]

I don't think you read the testimony correctly.

Martin, I read it correctly. Just because someone doesn't come to the same wild assumptions as you does not mean the read it incorrectly.

[weezer]

I have already told you these post are from Coras deposition. It has been discussed many times and most know when she testified.

You have been asked any many time to give a link to your flase claim of "Pigeon toed foot prints" by at least two posters and you have refused.

you know martin -- you seem to have missed the point: you are quoting a desposition. I asked what day she testified.

[William Anthony]

you know martin -- you seem to have missed the point: you are quoting a desposition. I asked what day she testified.

As you seem to be enamored by toes, I think you would have link to those pigeon-toed shoe prints, Woman. :)

[martin II]

A: -- because, see, Faye Resnick -- see, Faye Resnick was running out of money; she didn't have a home, and they were doing a lot of -- they were doing cocaine and they were doing -- they were soliciting men, and so they were out almost every night, and so I said, "Oh, my God, somebody could have done" -- you know.

Q: I take it, then, that you were with Nicole and Faye when they were doing cocaine. Is that right?

A: No.

Q: And I take it you were with Nicole and Faye when they were soliciting men. Is that right?

A: I was not with them.

Q: I see. So you have no firsthand knowledge of any of that. Is that right? Yes or no.

A: No.

Q: You have no firsthand knowledge that Nicole Brown Simpson was doing cocaine at the end --

A: Faye told me.

Q: -- of her life. You have no firsthand knowledge. You didn't see it. Is that right?

A: I didn't see it.

Q: And you didn't see her soliciting men. Is that right?

MR. BAKER: Stop arguing with the witness and pointing at her.

THE WITNESS: I didn't see them, but --

MR. KRAMER: You didn't see them.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: You didn't see them.

A: I didn't see them.

Q: You didn't --

A: I didn't know.

Q: Any man ever come up to you and say that "Nicole Brown Simpson solicited me"?

A: Yes.

Q: Who?

A: [Name Deleted]

Q: When did [Name Deleted] tell you that?

A: When I saw him at Starbucks coffee with his friend.

Q: After Nicole's death?

A: Yes.

Q: And what did [Name Deleted] tell you?

A: Well, we were consoling, and he said to me nice things about Nicole.

Q: Excuse me. I can't concentrate because Mr. Simpson is talking to Mr. Kelly.

A: And they -- and he told me that "I wanted to tell you something about Nicole."

I said, "Well" -- then he told me that they went out to dinner, and Nicole asked them if they do threesome.

Q: Nicole and [Name Deleted] went out to dinner?

A: And Ron Goldman. Ron Goldman, [Name Deleted] and Nicole. That was their first -- they went out to dinner.

Q: This is being related to you by [Name Deleted]. Is that right?

A: Yes.

[martin II]

Martin, I read it correctly. Just because someone doesn't come to the same wild assumptions as you does not mean the read it incorrectly.

You can read Coras testimony and decide what it means to you.I have not stated any assumptions.YET. I have posted the testimony.You make your own assumptions.

[weezer]

Do you stick by your position that a married woman that has a outside affair is a W*ore?

nah -- once they're butchered by their ex-husband, I call them a murder victim.

[martin II]

she can't even keep her story straight in this deposition on the 19th of March 1996. (see it's so simple to just add the date!)

She says 3 times, then asked if multiple she backtracks and says she doesn't know.

Assuming her friend is in an illicit affair with another is so crazy to me considering later in her testimony she confirms that Faye was kicked out her her home and was at Nicole's alot ...



so because her husband threw her out and she was staying with a supposed friend, all the sudden it's a lesbian affair. Interesting assumptions.




Q: And she didn't tell you that this was an ongoing thing with Faye.

A: Well, at that time I assumed it was an ongoing thing because she said that she did it with Brett three times, so -- and Faye was there a lot on Bundy, so I assumed that they were doing it.

Q: That was your assumption, right, that --

A: Faye confirmed it to me.

[weezer]

there is no corroboration of cora's statements. she betrayed her 'best' friend, tried to shift the blame for her own behavior to a dead woman, and then made at least one out of town weekend trip with the murderer. sad.

[martin II]

there is no corroboration of cora's statements. she betrayed her 'best' friend, tried to shift the blame for her own behavior to a dead woman, and then made at least one out of town weekend trip with the murderer. sad.

You may want to read the testimonty about the 'OUT OF TOWN TRIP' Cora made to Santa Monica, I think it was, to satisfy a request By Sdney that she bring her daughter to see her. Cora admitted her sexual relationship with that 32 year old man Terrance (that you call a grocery BOY)and she gave her reasons in her testimony.imo

[weezer]

You may want to read the testimonty about the 'OUT OF TOWN TRIP' Cora made to Santa Monica, I think it was, to satisfy a request By Sdney that she bring her daughter to see her. Cora admitted her sexual relationship with that 32 year old man Terrance (that you call a grocery BOY)and she gave her reasons in her testimony.imo

let me repeat -- there is no corroboration of cora's statements. she betrayed her 'best' friend, tried to shift the blame for her own behavior to a dead woman, and then made at least one out of town weekend trip with the murderer. sad.

[martin II]

let me repeat -- there is no corroboration of cora's statements. she betrayed her 'best' friend, tried to shift the blame for her own behavior to a dead woman, and then made at least one out of town weekend trip with the murderer. sad.

I have not seen any behavior by Cora that would cause her to have to shift blame towards anyone.imo

[martin II]

nah -- once they're butchered by their ex-husband, I call them a murder victim.

WEEZER
YOUR POST. Setting the rules for who you consider a W*ore.
Nicole did the same thing that Cora did.Both were married and had outside affairs.

she was a wh*re -- anyone married who sleeps around is a wh*re. I don't care if it's the husband or the wife and I don't care who they're sleeping with -- Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief.

hmmm -- I think I'm only repeating what I've read when I refer to the grocery boy as a 'boy' and not a 'man'.

[weezer]

WEEZER
YOUR POST. Setting the rules for who you consider a W*ore.
Nicole did the same thing that Cora did.Both were married and had outside affairs.

she was a wh*re -- anyone married who sleeps around is a wh*re. I don't care if it's the husband or the wife and I don't care who they're sleeping with -- Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief.

hmmm -- I think I'm only repeating what I've read when I refer to the grocery boy as a 'boy' and not a 'man'.

martin, YOU may be willing to accept cora's statements as fact -- I'm not. cora trashed her 'best' friend, blamed her 'best' friend for her own actions, and spent at least one out of town weekend with her 'best' friend's murderer.

the only thing I consider Nicole is dead. From all accounts, she was a great Mom, a good friend, and a victim of domestic abuse that resulted in her death. In her pictures she looks like a pretty woman who most men would be attracted to -- I can certainly see why orenthal was obsessed.

[martin II]

Q: How much did the Star pay you?

A: They paid me fifteen for that.

Q: Fifteen what?

A: 15,000.

Q: What did you do for $15,000?

A: What did I do?

Q: Yeah, what did you do?

A: Well, I wrote a -- they wrote an article about what we did at Christmas because I wanted to -- at that time I wanted a good story about Nicole. I was just tired of all this bad things about Nicole, and I thought that I would say something about the type of family these people were.

Q: Which people?

A: I mean the Simpsons.

Q: You were tired of --

A: I was tired --

Q: You were tired of hearing bad things about Nicole?

A: Yes.

Q: And you wanted to set the record straight and get out some information

A: Good information.

Q: Good?

A: Yes.

Q: About whom?

A: About Nicole and the family. I mean the Simpsons.

Q: When did you do this interview with Star Magazine, Miss Fischman?

A: Around that time, November of '94.

Q: How many hours did you spend on the

[martin II]

martin, YOU may be willing to accept cora's statements as fact -- I'm not. cora trashed her 'best' friend, blamed her 'best' friend for her own actions, and spent at least one out of town weekend with her 'best' friend's murderer.

the only thing I consider Nicole is dead. From all accounts, she was a great Mom, a good friend, and a victim of domestic abuse that resulted in her death. In her pictures she looks like a pretty woman who most men would be attracted to -- I can certainly see why orenthal was obsessed.

I have seen nothing in Coras lifestyle that would cause her to have to blame anyone for her actions.

I posted testimony as it was given. I did not post it asking your approval.Cora was closer to nicole than you and that is a fact.imo

[martin II]

martin, YOU may be willing to accept cora's statements as fact -- I'm not. cora trashed her 'best' friend, blamed her 'best' friend for her own actions, and spent at least one out of town weekend with her 'best' friend's murderer.

the only thing I consider Nicole is dead. From all accounts, she was a great Mom, a good friend, and a victim of domestic abuse that resulted in her death. In her pictures she looks like a pretty woman who most men would be attracted to -- I can certainly see why orenthal was obsessed.

I have seen nothing in Coras lifestyle that would cause her to have to blame anyone for her actions.

I posted testimony as it was given. I did not post it asking your approval.Cora was closer to nicole than you and that is a fact.
The testimony is what it is not what you think it is.imo

[weezer]

*****:
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"

[martin II]

*****:
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"


I think the situation is that you may have some moral or certifying standards that satisfy you for control of your life and i think that is fine.To try to evaluate and certify others by your moral standard can be kinda slippery for you. Most people make decisions based on what they believe is good/proper for them. I am not sure you are in a position to attatch negative names to Cora or anyone else. BUT i do realize you have a large set of names that you call those that don't agree with you.So keep at it if feels good.imo

[martin II]

*****:
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"

Nicoles friend C Jenner sold her story for $100,000 so i guess your post is directed at her.hahaha

[martin II]

weezer

You are missing the point of your name calling.

Cora A married woman had a affair and you call her a W*ORE.
NICOLE A married woman had a affair you call her a _______

[weezer]

weezer

You are missing the point of your name calling.

Cora A married woman had a affair and you call her a W*ORE.
NICOLE A married woman had a affair you call her a _______

you'll have to provide more than cora's statements --

[weezer]

Nicoles friend C Jenner sold her story for $100,000 so i guess your post is directed at her.hahaha

really? then I guess the Star understood what you can't seem to grasp -- cora's story wasn't worth much! hahahahaha

[martin II]

you'll have to provide more than cora's statements --

I don't have to provide anything.
You attatche negative names to people because of what? You got this authority from where/who?
You call another woman a W*ORE based on what?

[weezer]

I don't have to provide anything.
You attatche negative names to people because of what? You got this authority from where/who?
You call another woman a W*ORE based on what?

A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"

[martin II]

really? then I guess the Star understood what you can't seem to grasp -- cora's story wasn't worth much! hahahahaha

I think she may have gotten more because of her husbands name.But accoriding to you it was $100,000 of compromised principles for personal gain.

[martin II]

A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"

I think the situation is that you may have some moral or certifying standards that satisfy you for control of your life and i think that is fine.To try to evaluate and certify others by your moral standard can be kinda slippery for you. Most people make decisions based on what they believe is good/proper for them. I am not sure you are in a position to attatch negative names to Cora or anyone else. BUT i do realize you have a large set of names that you call those that don't agree with you.So keep at it if feels good.imo

[weezer]

I think the situation is that you may have some moral or certifying standards that satisfy you for control of your life and i think that is fine.To try to evaluate and certify others by your moral standard can be kinda slippery for you. Most people make decisions based on what they believe is good/proper for them. I am not sure you are in a position to attatch negative names to Cora or anyone else. BUT i do realize you have a large set of names that you call those that don't agree with you.So keep at it if feels good.imo

thank you martin. and, yes, I do have moral standards that I live by and that I evaluate other people by. It's not a judgment -- it's a standard. I realize that there are people more accepting of certain behavior than I am. That's fine. You don't hear me telling them they are wrong because of that but you also won't hear me change my feelings either.

morals and standards are good things -- you should try it sometime. imo

[SlowHandSam]

I think the situation is that you may have some moral or certifying standards that satisfy you for control of your life and i think that is fine.To try to evaluate and certify others by your moral standard can be kinda slippery for you. Most people make decisions based on what they believe is good/proper for them. I am not sure you are in a position to attatch negative names to Cora or anyone else. BUT i do realize you have a large set of names that you call those that don't agree with you.So keep at it if feels good.imo

Martin, just out of curiosity ...

why are you able to attach a name to someone (JC) but fbgweezer isn't allowed to attach a name to someone?

Just trying to understand the balance.

[martin II]

thank you martin. and, yes, I do have moral standards that I live by and that I evaluate other people by. It's not a judgment -- it's a standard. I realize that there are people more accepting of certain behavior than I am. That's fine. You don't hear me telling them they are wrong because of that but you also won't hear me change my feelings either.

morals and standards are good things -- you should try it sometime. imo

But you don't even know Cora and you called her w*ore on a public message board.

But look, if it works for you keep on trucking. :cool: :no:

[martin II]

Martin, just out of curiosity ...

why are you able to attach a name to someone (JC) but fbgweezer isn't allowed to attach a name to someone?

Just trying to understand the balance.

I think it is better to make positive comments than negative name calling about strangers. What do you think. You think Cora is a W*ORE??

[weezer]

But you don't even know Cora and you called her w*ore on a public message board.

But look, if it works for you keep on trucking. :cool: :no:

why on earth would I need to 'know' her? She said she was promiscuous. She said she sold a story about Nicole to a tabloid.

"A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain."

"Q: How much did the Star pay you?
A: They paid me fifteen for that.
Q: Fifteen what?
A: 15,000.
Q: What did you do for $15,000?
A: What did I do?
Q: Yeah, what did you do?"

[martin II]

thank you martin. and, yes, I do have moral standards that I live by and that I evaluate other people by. It's not a judgment -- it's a standard. I realize that there are people more accepting of certain behavior than I am. That's fine. You don't hear me telling them they are wrong because of that but you also won't hear me change my feelings either.

morals and standards are good things -- you should try it sometime. imo

Your standards are for you to live by. you can keep your negative opinions of others to yourself. What is the benefit to you of the negative name calling of others.Seems like you would have learned that by now.But i guess not.imo:no:
See ye

[William Anthony]

Sometimes when I am looking for information, I find links to what we have said in this community. I think that we must be remember that we are being watched and we must show a little patience in our postings. I think that a little understanding will take us a long way and may change the way others, who are observing, think of us.

[SlowHandSam]

I think it is better to make positive comments than negative name calling about strangers. What do you think. You think Cora is a W*ORE??

I think it's best to not use words that are intended to inflame the other posters. Calling Cora a name or you adding superfluous adjectives to JC's name (which you know inflames some other posters) has absolutely no value to this board.

But to answer your question, in my own way ... my opinion about Cora and her lifestyle is irrelevant. It's not for me to judge her, publicly, but I do have my own opinions that I choose to not share.

[martin II]

I think it's best to not use words that are intended to inflame the other posters. Calling Cora a name or you adding superfluous adjectives to JC's name (which you know inflames some other posters) has absolutely no value to this board.

But to answer your question, in my own way ... my opinion about Cora and her lifestyle is irrelevant. It's not for me to judge her, publicly, but I do have my own opinions that I choose to not share.

I Think JC deserves acculades sp for his superb work as a member of the winning team. But i do agree with the balance of your post.imo

[William Anthony]

I think it's best to not use words that are intended to inflame the other posters. Calling Cora a name or you adding superfluous adjectives to JC's name (which you know inflames some other posters) has absolutely no value to this board.

But to answer your question, in my own way ... my opinion about Cora and her lifestyle is irrelevant. It's not for me to judge her, publicly, but I do have my own opinions that I choose to not share.

With all due respect, calling a witness a name and recognizing a lawyer's skill are two entirely different things. I have already addressed my reference to the magnificent one and do not think that should inflame anyone. I am not inflamed by flee or cockroach.

[SlowHandSam]

With all due respect, calling a witness a name and recognizing a lawyer's skill are two entirely different things. I have already addressed my reference to the magnificent one and do not think that should inflame anyone. I am not inflamed by flee or cockroach.

"With all due respect", I'm not the first person to suggest that constantly referring to JC as "magnificent" or "the magnificent one" inflames some posters.

It's just a suggestion to go in line with "raising the level" schtick you are on.

[martin II]

With all due respect, calling a witness a name and recognizing a lawyer's skill are two entirely different things. I have already addressed my reference to the magnificent one and do not think that should inflame anyone. I am not inflamed by flee or cockroach.

And showing pleasure that Cochran is dead and that oj should have killed himself.:cool:

[limakey]

Mr. August (I think!)

I believe it was you that posted from Petrocelli's book on why he didn't use Dr. Ameli. Now, does it make sense that Petrocelli did check out story and basically says she was not lying or he could not prove it, so he made the choice to let the Browns and the Goldmans make a very, very important call in his case?

Also, a form of payment is not the only way to confirm if in fact that Ron and Nicole were seeing Dr. Ameli. They were in group sessions---no one else remembered them? There was no sign in sheet? Cash payments were not logged in?

IMO, Dr. Ameli hurt their case, even though she was the perfect motive and perhaps even timeline witness. There has to be several reasons why they didn't use her----and not for the one's Petrocelli wrote about, IMO.

[William Anthony]

"With all due respect", I'm not the first person to suggest that constantly referring to JC as "magnificent" or "the magnificent one" inflames some posters.

It's just a suggestion to go in line with "raising the level" schtick you are on.

I think you may be the second. My efforts in raising the level of posting in the community has to do with uncivil, impolite, rude, disrespectful and crass posts. Referring to a person's as magnificent or brilliant (Bailey) is neither uncivil, impolite, rude, disrespectful or crass, imho. I could not help noticing that no one has complained about the brilliant Bailey. Although I have disagreed with what Posters have said about VB and Petrocelli, I have not complained about the way they refer to them. I am not inflamed by other people's feelings about them.

I do appreciate your thoughts on raising the level of posting. I just think that in this case that using magnificent of brilliant does not devalue the level of posting. However, I think posting flee and cockroach in regard to Bailey and the magnificent one may be name calling. What are your suggestions on that?

[Kate Sachel]

Yes, I thought it was a continuation of the other conversation, since I was specifically mentioned. Like I said, I think there must be some objective judgment as to what incites. I am not trying to bring these conversations up again but I am using them for as examples. The posts about boy and fried chicken. The post about fried chicken had no relevance to the discussion, although I will say it was a creative way of saying what the poster wanted to say, imho. The word boy was directed to Martin and me. Once we stated those things were offensive/inciting, there was quite a bit of discussion defending them. I am simply saying that my use of the word magnificent is relevant to describe his abilities, imho, and the other words, which were defended, had no place in the discussions, imho.

I think it's fine to cite your examples above in making your point, though to be honest I didn't closely follow the remarks regarding fried chicken though I did follow the conversation regarding boy.

I don't personally take issue with the manner you choose to refer to Cochran, in fact I would more tend to agree that his lawyering skills were quite magnificent though I didn't alsways agree with his tactics.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I think it's fine to cite your examples above in making your point, though to be honest I didn't closely follow the remarks regarding fried chicken though I did follow the conversation regarding boy.

I don't personally take issue with the manner you choose to refer to Cochran, in fact I would more tend to agree that his lawyering skills were quite magnificent though I didn't alsways agree with his tactics.

Kate

I think he gave his client the best defense possible. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I think he gave his client the best defense possible. :)

I'm not only referring to the OJ trial, I have followed Cochran's history for quite some time.

Kate

[William Anthony]

OK - I'm from the "Show me State." If you will look back at all of my other posts (it will take a while - there are a whole 15 of them! hee hee) you will see that the other time I posted was during a period that William and Martin had taken offense to the word "Murderer." I stated that if it bothered them, I would not use the word. I still think he did it, but I won't use the word. I'm just attempting to show my sincerity and where I am coming from. A favorite quote of mine "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" I really try to be happy as much as I can.

Alright, since you did not use the word murderer after we took offense, I will not use the phrase when I answer your posts. However, since others still use it, then I will not do the same for them. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm not only referring to the OJ trial, I have followed Cochran's history for quite some time.

Kate

I had really not heard of him until that trial. I found him to be quite impressive. I did not know that he was a former prosecutor until big ben posted it, which might explain the respect he had in the courtroom.

[limakey]

Slowhand and Kate,

In regards to OJ's affairs, I have never given him a free pass on them. I feel very strongly that cheating is a very brutal form of domestic abuse. Playing with someone's head and heart inflicts wounds so deep, that I don't think any one fully recovers.

However, IMO, it still seems that men cheat, they are still "boys will be boys" and they were only having sex, they weren't making love and apparently that makes all the difference. Remember Bill Clinton? He wrote in his book that he had affairs because he could. However, Senator Clinton would never be able to "justify" any affair with the same reason.

Like I have posted before, all of OJ's friends knew he cheated on Nicole but that did not stop them from enjoying his company or his status as a celebrity. However, after the murders, these very same friends suddenly had a change of heart regarding his cheating on Nicole.

I think this is a double standard that will never go away. Remember in one of the letters that Nicole wrote to OJ? That she would like to screw all of his friends to inflict some of the pain on him that he has inflicted on her but it she felt that she could lose her kids over this? IMO, it appears that a man who has affairs does not equal to him being a bad father. However, it seems to me that if a woman has an affair, she is a bad mother. Go figure!

Also, IMO, this double standard is across the board, doesn't matter rich or poor or race. A man who has affairs his a dog, but a woman is FBG's word.

[SlowHandSam]

Slowhand and Kate,

In regards to OJ's affairs, I have never given him a free pass on them. I feel very strongly that cheating is a very brutal form of domestic abuse. Playing with someone's head and heart inflicts wounds so deep, that I don't think any one fully recovers.

However, IMO, it still seems that men cheat, they are still "boys will be boys" and they were only having sex, they weren't making love and apparently that makes all the difference. Remember Bill Clinton? He wrote in his book that he had affairs because he could. However, Senator Clinton would never be able to "justify" any affair with the same reason.

Like I have posted before, all of OJ's friends knew he cheated on Nicole but that did not stop them from enjoying his company or his status as a celebrity. However, after the murders, these very same friends suddenly had a change of heart regarding his cheating on Nicole.

I think this is a double standard that will never go away. Remember in one of the letters that Nicole wrote to OJ? That she would like to screw all of his friends to inflict some of the pain on him that he has inflicted on her but it she felt that she could lose her kids over this? IMO, it appears that a man who has affairs does not equal to him being a bad father. However, it seems to me that if a woman has an affair, she is a bad mother. Go figure!

Also, IMO, this double standard is across the board, doesn't matter rich or poor or race. A man who has affairs his a dog, but a woman is FBG's word.

limakey, may I first make a request? Would you be willing to quote the post for your replies so that we can see the full context of your response to the original post? It paints the full picture without having to scroll back and locate which post to which you are responding.

I agree there is a double standard. That's why I don't understand why so many of the NGs focus on her personal intimate behavior when we all know the oj catted around while married to his first wife and second wife.

[William Anthony]

Antiquated notions of property rights.

[limakey]

SHS,

I will try the quote thing---I just have to remember how to do it!

IMO, I think the reason that NG's have brought up Nicole's personal life is because of what her friends have said about her. From what I have read, Nicole's behavior and actions the last 6 months was in such contrast to the woman they have known for years. Her behavior was so out of character that her friends were looking for explainations on why she was behaving this way. It seems that at least a couple of them have blamed Faye for the changes in Nicole.

It seems only Faye has not spoken about these drastic changes in Nicole.

I do believe that some of these friends were truly concerned for Nicole. I did not get the feeling that they were out to shame her. I can't say the same about one "friend". Again, IMO.

[martin II]

limakey, may I first make a request? Would you be willing to quote the post for your replies so that we can see the full context of your response to the original post? It paints the full picture without having to scroll back and locate which post to which you are responding.

I agree there is a double standard. That's why I don't understand why so many of the NGs focus on her personal intimate behavior when we all know the oj catted around while married to his first wife and second wife.

Faye. Cindi and mrs Jenner. Denise , The Browns were a few.

[Kate Sachel]

Slowhand and Kate,

In regards to OJ's affairs, I have never given him a free pass on them. I feel very strongly that cheating is a very brutal form of domestic abuse. Playing with someone's head and heart inflicts wounds so deep, that I don't think any one fully recovers.

However, IMO, it still seems that men cheat, they are still "boys will be boys" and they were only having sex, they weren't making love and apparently that makes all the difference. Remember Bill Clinton? He wrote in his book that he had affairs because he could. However, Senator Clinton would never be able to "justify" any affair with the same reason.

Like I have posted before, all of OJ's friends knew he cheated on Nicole but that did not stop them from enjoying his company or his status as a celebrity. However, after the murders, these very same friends suddenly had a change of heart regarding his cheating on Nicole.

I think this is a double standard that will never go away. Remember in one of the letters that Nicole wrote to OJ? That she would like to screw all of his friends to inflict some of the pain on him that he has inflicted on her but it she felt that she could lose her kids over this? IMO, it appears that a man who has affairs does not equal to him being a bad father. However, it seems to me that if a woman has an affair, she is a bad mother. Go figure!

Also, IMO, this double standard is across the board, doesn't matter rich or poor or race. A man who has affairs his a dog, but a woman is FBG's word.

I know that you have never given him a free pass on his cheating, and that you feel very strongly about that subject.

I agree with the majority of this post.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

SHS,

I will try the quote thing---I just have to remember how to do it!

IMO, I think the reason that NG's have brought up Nicole's personal life is because of what her friends have said about her. From what I have read, Nicole's behavior and actions the last 6 months was in such contrast to the woman they have known for years. Her behavior was so out of character that her friends were looking for explainations on why she was behaving this way. It seems that at least a couple of them have blamed Faye for the changes in Nicole.

It seems only Faye has not spoken about these drastic changes in Nicole.

I do believe that some of these friends were truly concerned for Nicole. I did not get the feeling that they were out to shame her. I can't say the same about one "friend". Again, IMO.

all you have to do is click the "quote" button in the post you're replying to instead of the "post reply" at the bottom of each page.

I find it far too frustrating to scroll and search, sometimes one page back, to locate the post you are referring.

...

what about oj's behavior the 6 months prior? Again, this trial was not about Nicole's private life. It was about oj.

[Kate Sachel]

And this has what to do with the civil trial? You know, burden of proof below the criminal trial? Nicole could do cartwheels outside her house. Who cares?
Who cares what Faye says in the criminal trial?

The jurors, who deliberated for way longer than the criminal jurors found Simpson liable for her death. This is the civil trial thread.

Hello!

It is important that we note that the civil jury did not find OJ liable for the death of Nicole, only for the death of Ron Goldman. The question of liability for her death never came before that jury, rather in regard to Nicole the jury found that he committed battery upon her.

While we may recognize that the battery committed upon her caused her death, the legal verdict does not allow us to say that he was found liable for her death.

Kate

[martin II]

all you have to do is click the "quote" button in the post you're replying to instead of the "post reply" at the bottom of each page.

I find it far too frustrating to scroll and search, sometimes one page back, to locate the post you are referring.

...

what about oj's behavior the 6 months prior? Again, this trial was not about Nicole's private life. It was about oj.

In a search for the truth the victims lifestyle is important which is why Petrocelli asked witnesses many many quesitons about her life.imo

[martin II]

And this has what to do with the civil trial? You know, burden of proof below the criminal trial? Nicole could do cartwheels outside her house. Who cares?
Who cares what Faye says in the criminal trial?

The jurors, who deliberated for way longer than the criminal jurors found Simpson liable for her death. This is the civil trial thread.

Hello!

Bell
It is comon knowledge that you must have missed. Faye did not testify in the criminal trial.imo

[weezer]

Bell
It is comon knowledge that you must have missed. Faye did not testify in the criminal trial.imo

or the civil trial but that has not kept you from posting her deposition. :shrug:

[martin II]

or the civil trial but that has not kept you from posting her deposition. :shrug:

I am not sure but did i post Fay Resnicks testimony/deposition?

[limakey]

SHS,

Thanks! I will try it. I don't understand what you mean about the changes in OJ in the last 6 months of Nicole's life.

[martin II]

SHS,

Thanks! I will try it. I don't understand what you mean about the changes in OJ in the last 6 months of Nicole's life.

Paula had become more and more involved in ojs life and he had moved more and more away from nicole as she had become more and more involved with Faye and others.imo

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I do not think that Nicole's friends would have showed much concern if she was only doing cart wheels in front of her house. Now if she was doing them in the street, I can see where they have been concerned that she would get hit by a car.

Have you ever had a friend that you can't even remember not knowing him? Have you ever had a close friend who was acting so out of character that it caused you concern? That you know something is wrong and that are reasons behind this behavior but your friend has made it clear that the subject is closed? Did you stopped being concerned because your friend wouldn't talk about it?

Now what if something terrible happened to your friend or your friend did something terrrible---how could you not go back and wonder what role the reasons of changed behavior played a part?

Except for 1 friend, Nicole's friends were concerned for her, it appeared to me that they thought that Nicole was in over head with Faye Resnick. That Nicole would not have been acting the way she was acting if Faye was not in her life. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Mr. Bell,

I do not think that Nicole's friends would have showed much concern if she was only doing cart wheels in front of her house. Now if she was doing them in the street, I can see where they have been concerned that she would get hit by a car.

Have you ever had a friend that you can't even remember not knowing him? Have you ever had a close friend who was acting so out of character that it caused you concern? That you know something is wrong and that are reasons behind this behavior but your friend has made it clear that the subject is closed? Did you stopped being concerned because your friend wouldn't talk about it?

Now what if something terrible happened to your friend or your friend did something terrrible---how could you not go back and wonder what role the reasons of changed behavior played a part?

Except for 1 friend, Nicole's friends were concerned for her, it appeared to me that they thought that Nicole was in over head with Faye Resnick. That Nicole would not have been acting the way she was acting if Faye was not in her life. Again, IMO.


Well we know that Nicoles lifestyle change when faye became a close friend.
imo

[martin II]

and what day(s) did cora 'fishmans' testify?

What day did you realize that your claim that i posted faye testimony was not true?

[tv]

I think the victims get lost at times in all the discussion and trial testimony. I thought this was touching testimony by Faye Resnick in her deposition in the civil trial.

Q. Can you share with us your - can you tell us - describe Nicole for us, is what I am trying to say. What kind of person was she? I would like you to talk a little bit about the kind of person she was as she presented herself to you.

A. Nicole was a very gracious friend. She was a - she was a very simple girl with great motherly qualities and she was just sweet, she was strong, she was - she had lived a painful life, so she was guarded. At the same time - she was the most wonderful woman I have ever met.

Q. Was she fun-loving?

A. She was very fun-loving. She was - she loved to play with her children. I mean, she just - she had a lot of spirit in her. She was a lively mother, a lively friend. She was unlike the typical person that you meet in Los Angeles, very down to earth, not a superficial girl. She wasn't - she wasn't a real social girl, as far as the industry, parties. She was kind of a beach girl.

[weezer]

"Daniel Petrocelli begins his day-long argument putting pictures of the victims--"Here they are in life"--up on the large-screen TV. You know what comes next, ugly crime-scene photos of the victims, but what's surprising is the defendant's reaction: O.J. looks away from the screen as the photo of the murdered Nicole is displayed, but when the image cuts to that of the murdered Ron Goldman, Simpson turns to the screen, fixing his gaze on it until the screen returns to its blue repose. . ."

[weezer]

"The plaintiffs' position, as Petrocelli articulates it, is that their side has gone far beyond the "preponderance of evidence" burden, has presented "overwhelming and incriminating evidence" of Simpson's guilt, "to a certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt." But his emphasis, early and often, is on pressing the advantage of having had O.J. to cross-examine. What, he asks the jurors, did the defendant tell you about his blood on the ground at Bundy, his glove and cap at the crime scene, Nicole's and Ron's blood in his Bronco, his inability to produce in court his Aris Leather Lite gloves, or the 30 photographs "of him wearing the ugly-ass Bruno Magli shoes that he swore to you he never owned and never wore?" Over and over again, Petro repeats the mantra: "Not one word." . . .

[tv]

"The plaintiffs' position, as Petrocelli articulates it, is that their side has gone far beyond the "preponderance of evidence" burden, has presented "overwhelming and incriminating evidence" of Simpson's guilt, "to a certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt." But his emphasis, early and often, is on pressing the advantage of having had O.J. to cross-examine. What, he asks the jurors, did the defendant tell you about his blood on the ground at Bundy, his glove and cap at the crime scene, Nicole's and Ron's blood in his Bronco, his inability to produce in court his Aris Leather Lite gloves, or the 30 photographs "of him wearing the ugly-ass Bruno Magli shoes that he swore to you he never owned and never wore?" Over and over again, Petro repeats the mantra: "Not one word." . . .

IMO the reason he wore the Bruno Magli's to kill Nicole is because he didn't like the shoes and he knew he'd be throwing them away afterwards. I've always tried to figure out if he planned to kill her that night or he was just overcome with rage once he got there but his choice of shoes makes me feel he planned it. If not, why not just keep wearing the sneakers he had on earlier in the evening?

[William Anthony]

IMO the reason he wore the Bruno Magli's to kill Nicole is because he didn't like the shoes and he knew he'd be throwing them away afterwards. I've always tried to figure out if he planned to kill her that night or he was just overcome with rage once he got there but his choice of shoes makes me feel he planned it. If not, why not just keep wearing the sneakers he had on earlier in the evening?

What Bruno Magli dress shoes did Petrocelli introduce that Simpson wore on the night of the murders or did he produce some alleged pictures of shoes similar to the ones claimed to have been worn by Simpson?

[tv]

What Bruno Magli dress shoes did Petrocelli introduce that Simpson wore on the night of the murders or did he produce some alleged pictures of shoes similar to the ones claimed to have been worn by Simpson?

The pictures were authenticated by an FBI photo expert. The defense produced a guy who runs JFK assassination tours in Dallas to say the photos were faked. In fact, there were several different photographers that had pictures of the future killer wearing the shoes.

[William Anthony]

The pictures were authenticated by an FBI photo expert. The defense produced a guy who runs JFK assassination tours in Dallas to say the photos were faked. In fact, there were several different photographers that had pictures of the future killer wearing the shoes.

What Bruno Magli dress shoes did Petrocelli introduce that Simpson wore on the night of the murders or did he produce some alleged pictures of shoes similar to the ones claimed to have been worn by Simpson?