Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

All of us have biases, including unfair biases. Most of us try to be fair. I believe blacks and other minorities have valid complaints. I don't believe that the great admiration that many blacks felt for Cochran was base primarily on an admiration for Cochran's legal skills, or those of the team he worked on (Bailey, etc). I think it was that he had battled with the largely white LA Prosecutor's office and won, not that justice had triumphed. There were large numbers of blacks who applauded the 1995 acquittal. Almost none of them expressed much interest in furthur study of the evidence to see if it was rigged, to study the EDTA evidence for example. Of course the pro prosecution people weren't asking for study of it either, but I think the pro defense people were coming up with a more illogical view points. They were saying: There is reason to think the evidence was tampered with, that Mr. SImpson was framed; however we have no desire for a commission or a group of experts to investigate it. I have to assume that a lot of people who were making the charges were afraid of being proved wrong. For example Mr. Scheck, in the trial directly accused D. Fung of evidence tampering because he was afraid of his boss. Mr. Scheck offered no evidence of this, nor did he ask anybody to investigate the situation afterwards. It seemed like, throw a lot of mud against a wall and hope some of it sticks. I found it depressing to see people applaud this sort of behavior, and I think that people who do the applauding should feel a little shame.

In spite of this I don't say that blacks are more racially prejudiced whites. I think probably in most situations where whites are reluctant to be around blacks it has more to do with their own biases than fear of black racism.

I know that I am stepping on toes here, and in spite of whatever disagreements I have with others, I don't think of myself as morally superior overall to the other posters.

I think that most fair minded citizens would be pleased with the defence work
that was able to prove to a legal jury that the prosecutions charges were false and unproven and that a man was not wrongly sent to jail.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9192208]Putting my son in the defendents chair is rather hard because I don't have a son. That really isn't what you meant. You were making the point that how we feel depends on whose bull is being gored, who is hurt or helped. But if it was someone I cared for personally, I would not be allowed to be the judge or on the jury. If it was someone I cared about, a friend or relative, I might think a bribe to the judge or a tunnel into the jail/prison was OK. On the other hand, if it was someone I resented, I would probably think it was OK to throw the book at them. So I think we should try to think of it in more abstract terms.

fgump2,

If your first thought is to bribe a judge or dig tunnel for escape, aren't you assuming your loved one is guilty even before a trial takes place? Before the evidence was presented by both sides?


He would also be considering that it is ok to break the law.He would be considering that it is ok to do what he has claimed oj was doing during the Bronco ride. HAHAHA

[martin II]

FGUMP2

When the prosecution claimed the murders took place at 10:15 and the defence said not true.Was the defence just trowing mud against the wall to see if their claim would stick?
When the defence presented Heidstra as their witness to give a more believable murder time were they just tossing mud against the wall or were they telling the jury see you cannot believe the prosecutions murder time because it makes no sense and it is in conflict with other evidence.

[weezer]

He was to be admired for his courtroom skills and his accomplishments in the profession, IMHO.

. . .because he certainly had to be held in distain for his personal morals and character. imo

[weezer]

There was no verdict of innocence. I call him the magnificent one after observing his skill in the courtroom and his command of that courtroom. I did not observe the oily one but I have looked the transcripts and I think Petro deserves the names, as some believe in calling cockroach and flee.

boy (no racial slur) you sure have a warped sense of standards to hold cockroach and/or flee up as any kind of role model in or out of the courtroom. imo

[William Anthony]

Some will find any reason to hold in disdain those that they are jealous of, IMHO.

[weezer]

Some will find any reason to hold in disdain those that they are jealous of, IMHO.

what you talking about willis?

[tv]

Some will find any reason to hold in disdain those that they are jealous of, IMHO. That would certainly explain your feelings about Det. Fuhrman, imo. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

That would certainly explain your feelings about Det. Fuhrman, imo. :rolleyes:

I have never held the ambition to be a corrupt member of LE or a cowardly racist.;)

[tv]

I have never held the ambition to be a corrupt member of LE or a cowardly racist.;)

Good morning, William. :)

[William Anthony]

Good morning, William. :)

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner.

[tv]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner.

No smile? :)

[William Anthony]

No smile? :)

Why every morning that I am able to converse with posters brings a smile to my face. :)

[tv]

Why every morning that I am able to converse with posters brings a smile to my face. :)

I thought maybe you'd gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm glad to see you're in your usual good humor. :)

[William Anthony]

I thought maybe you'd gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm glad to see you're in your usual good humor. :)

Any side of the bed is the right side for me.:)

[tv]

Any side of the bed is the right side for me.:)

You must be a morning peson...can't say that I am. :)

[weezer]

I have never held the ambition to be a corrupt member of LE or a cowardly racist.;)

I understand what you mean since I've never aspired to be the type of person who betrays my family with an adulterous affair, produce illegitimate children that I don't acknowledge until forced, manipulate a system and a people by using race, be accused of abuse, or to lie, steal, and cheat in order to win. But I guess it's each to his own, huh?

[martin II]

william

Some claim to have a higher moral code of living than others and then give full energy to supporting Furhman.What a crock. imo

[martin II]

You must be a morning peson...can't say that I am. :)

"The night time is the right time"
Ray Charles

[martin II]

That would certainly explain your feelings about Det. Fuhrman, imo. :rolleyes:

From some comments i believe many lawyers learned a lot from watching Cochran display his superior lawyering skills in the oj case.

[weezer]

william

Some claim to have a higher moral code of living than others and then give full energy to supporting Furhman.What a crock. imo

got news for you -- I do have a higher moral code than cockroach -- hands down!

you obviously misunderstand my standing regarding Fuhrman: I don't support nor not support his personal views -- I do believe that cockroach and company used tape recordings that were completely unrelated to the guilt or innocence of orenthal to incite/inflame/impassion an already biased jury; I do believe you and other NG's use Fuhrman as the horse to beat because you don't have anything else.:shrug:

[tv]

got news for you -- I do have a higher moral code than cockroach -- hands down!

you obviously misunderstand my standing regarding Fuhrman: I don't support nor not support his personal views -- I do believe that cockroach and company used tape recordings that were completely unrelated to the guilt or innocence of orenthal to incite/inflame/impassion an already biased jury; I do believe you and other NG's use Fuhrman as the horse to beat because you don't have anything else.:shrug:

We can explain our views on Mark Fuhrman until the cows come home and they put their own interpretation on it no matter what we say. Johnnie knew his jury -- he led them the way he wanted them to go by deliberately manipulating their deepest emotions...OJ Simpson didn't deserve their loyalty but it allowed him to walk free for 14 years. The only good thing to come out of the criminal trial is that he lost the one thing he prized above all else -- his image.

[weezer]

We can explain our views on Mark Fuhrman until the cows come home and they put their own interpretation on it no matter what we say. Johnnie knew his jury -- he led them the way he wanted them to go by deliberately manipulating their deepest emotions...OJ Simpson didn't deserve their loyalty but it allowed him to walk free for 14 years. The only good thing to come out of the criminal trial is that he lost the one thing he prized above all else -- his image.

I've always believed that cockroach understood orenthal because he related to the adultery, abuse, lying, cheating, stealing. I just shake my head when misguided folks hold cockroach and flee up as some kind of role models-- Good Gawd!

[martin II]

We can explain our views on Mark Fuhrman until the cows come home and they put their own interpretation on it no matter what we say. Johnnie knew his jury -- he led them the way he wanted them to go by deliberately manipulating their deepest emotions...OJ Simpson didn't deserve their loyalty but it allowed him to walk free for 14 years. The only good thing to come out of the criminal trial is that he lost the one thing he prized above all else -- his image.

your position has been that furhman was a good/great detective and other defensive claims. what is there to change about that?

[martin II]

Usually those that do live by some high moral code don't find it necessary to brag.On the other those that do brag, well that is usually another question with another answer. imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

I see there was no denial of racial hatred that causes some to act disrespectful or insulting toward another race.:)

[William Anthony]

We can explain our views on Mark Fuhrman until the cows come home and they put their own interpretation on it no matter what we say. Johnnie knew his jury -- he led them the way he wanted them to go by deliberately manipulating their deepest emotions...OJ Simpson didn't deserve their loyalty but it allowed him to walk free for 14 years. The only good thing to come out of the criminal trial is that he lost the one thing he prized above all else -- his image.

Did MF deserve the jury's loyalty. The magnificent one exposed MF's means, motive and opportunity to plant evidence. If evidence of actions of corrupt officers touched that jury's deepest emotions, then it is as it should have been, IMHO. I am worried when such evidence and statements of racial hatred are downplayed by some.

[bobaugust]

A very long post to agree with me that there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the socio political production that Park's phone records document the time that Kato ran down the pathway or that Kato heard the thumps.:)

Park testified that he was on the telephone talking to his boss when he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up from the driveway, enter his house, and lights come on in the downstairs windows. In the criminal trial the time that Park first saw Simpson was established as shortly before 10:55 by using Park’s telephone records that documented when that telephone call ended and Park’s estimate that his sighting occurred within the last ten to thirty seconds before ending that call.

Since Park said he first saw Kaelin and then Simpson almost at the same time it’s not too difficult to understand that Park saw Kaelin shortly before 10:55. In the civil trial the time Park saw Kaelin was established as 10:54 and 30 seconds.

The evidence is that when Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway Kaelin was going to investigate the thumps he had just heard on his back wall. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to use the established time Park first saw Kaelin along with Kaelin’s time estimate that he had left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the thumps on his back wall to understand the thumps occurred at approximately 10:51.

bobugust

[bobaugust]

The one thing that I noticed about some Gs is when the evidence contradicts what they think happens it is minor or irrelevant or, as stated by this poster, in this case, both.:)

The evidence doesn’t contradict what I believe happened, the evidence supports what I believe happened. As to whether or not Kaelin was running, walking, walking briskly, or doing all three is irrelevant since it doesn’t change when and where Kaelin said he came from or when and where Kaelin said he went. I called it minor because it was never an issue in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Park testified that he was on the telephone talking to his boss when he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up from the driveway, enter his house, and lights come on in the downstairs windows. In the criminal trial the time that Park first saw Simpson was established as shortly before 10:55 by using Park’s telephone records that documented when that telephone call ended and Park’s estimate that his sighting occurred within the last ten to thirty seconds before ending that call.

Since Park said he first saw Kaelin and then Simpson almost at the same time it’s not too difficult to understand that Park saw Kaelin shortly before 10:55. In the civil trial the time Park saw Kaelin was established as 10:54 and 30 seconds.

The evidence is that when Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway Kaelin was going to investigate the thumps he had just heard on his back wall. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to use the established time Park first saw Kaelin along with Kaelin’s time estimate that he had left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the thumps on his back wall to understand the thumps occurred at approximately 10:51.

bobugust

You may not think it is too unreasonable to arrive at the estimations in the manner that you did. However, the court obviously saw that it was not a reasonable inference as when Petro tried to suggest just that the objection to that line was sustained. The fact that you think this is reasonable makes me think that you do not understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and the concept of evidence. You have correctly stated that what the lawyers say is not evidence. So, what Ms. Clark said was not evidence. You see that the question was sustained in the socio political production. So, as I said thanks for admitting there was no evidence in the criminal trial or socio political production that Park's phone records documented the time Kato left his room or heard the thumps.

[William Anthony]

The evidence doesn’t contradict what I believe happened, the evidence supports what I believe happened. As to whether or not Kaelin was running, walking, walking briskly, or doing all three is irrelevant since it doesn’t change when and where Kaelin said he came from or when and where Kaelin said he went. I called it minor because it was never an issue in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

Your post.

We know that whether or not Kaelin was sometimes running, sometimes walking, and sometimes walking briskly was a minor irrelevant issue since Simpson’s attorneys never brought it up in the criminal trial or the civil trial.
bobaugust

I see that you do want to play judge as you are attempting to decide what evidence is relevant. Let me just say that, if it was not relevant, it would not have been admitted, IMHO. As I have said, since the evidence that Park saw Kato walking down the pathway, you say it is irrelevant and minor, because Kato said he was running down the pathway, which contradicts what you believe happened. If it was not an issue, there would not have been such changes in Park's testimony, IMHO.

[tv]

Did MF deserve the jury's loyalty. The magnificent one exposed MF's means, motive and opportunity to plant evidence. If evidence of actions of corrupt officers touched that jury's deepest emotions, then it is as it should have been, IMHO. I am worried when such evidence and statements of racial hatred are downplayed by some.

The jurie's loyalties should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. They had an obligation to listen to and comprehend all the testimony in the trial. If there was something they didn't understand they could have asked for clarification. The statement by the jury of 'we take care of our own' and the black power salute by a juror are examples of hate and bias. The disrepect and racial hatred that they represent has been defended and justified by certain posters on this board. Why is that okay?

[GreenIce]

Your post.



I see that you do want to play judge as you are attempting to decide what evidence is relevant. Let me just say that, if it was not relevant, it would not have been admitted, IMHO. As I have said, since the evidence that Park saw Kato walking down the pathway, you say it is irrelevant and minor, because Kato said he was running down the pathway, which contradicts what you believe happened. If it was not an issue, there would not have been such changes in Park's testimony, IMHO.

William,

Kato did say that he was running, however, was he ever asked why he was running? Was it because he saw the limo driver and wanted to let him in?

[bobaugust]

You may not think it is too unreasonable to arrive at the estimations in the manner that you did. However, the court obviously saw that it was not a reasonable inference as when Petro tried to suggest just that the objection to that line was sustained. The fact that you think this is reasonable makes me think that you do not understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and the concept of evidence. You have correctly stated that what the lawyers say is not evidence. So, what Ms. Clark said was not evidence. You see that the question was sustained in the socio political production. So, as I said thanks for admitting there was no evidence in the criminal trial or socio political production that Park's phone records documented the time Kato left his room or heard the thumps.

I see you have edited your claim without admitting you were mistaken when you said there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the civil trial that Park's phone records were used to document the time that Kato came down the pathway.

I have already posted that I do not recall ever saying that Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to establish the time of the noises. Marcia Clark used that logical reasonable inference in her closing argument in the criminal trial.

I have made the same logical and reasonable inference that Clark made based on Kaelin’s time estimate and Park’s telephone records to come to a more accurate time, than Kaelin’s guess, as to when the thumps occurred on his back wall. Just as Clark established a more accurate time, than Park’s guess, as to what time he saw Simpson enter his house. And just as Petrocelli established a more accurate time, than Kaelin’s guess, as to what time it was when he came down the Ashford pathway after leaving his room to investigate the noises.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see that you do want to play judge as you are attempting to decide what evidence is relevant. Let me just say that, if it was not relevant, it would not have been admitted, IMHO. As I have said, since the evidence that Park saw Kato walking down the pathway, you say it is irrelevant and minor, because Kato said he was running down the pathway, which contradicts what you believe happened. If it was not an issue, there would not have been such changes in Park's testimony, IMHO.

Whether or not Kaelin was running or walking or walking briskly neither contradicts what I believe nor does it contradict Park’s testimony that he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. You’re the only one who has ever made the false inference that just because Park didn’t say Kaelin was running than that somehow means he didn’t see him come from behind the house and down the pathway.

This was a minor irrelevant issue because it was never brought up in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The jurie's loyalties should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. They had an obligation to listen to and comprehend all the testimony in the trial. If there was something they didn't understand they could have asked for clarification. The statement by the jury of 'we take care of our own' and the black power salute by a juror are examples of hate and bias. The disrepect and racial hatred that they represent has been defended and justified by certain posters on this board. Why is that okay?

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a trial and I understand why you have misplaced loyalties. My original question was did the jury owe MF any loyalty. You responded with the jury's loyalty should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. Nothing can be farther from the truth. You have placed your own definition on what the jury's statements and actions meant, which is not to say that you are wrong; only that you may not be right as the statement could mean making sure that a citizen (one of their own) is not convicted on such flimsy and convoluted evidence. The Black Power salute has been used by Whites to Whites, although you in the south claim never to have seen it used in that manner. However, it meant to me that it was a symbol of Blacks' need and struggle for political, social, financial and judicial equality. I see the salute not as a sign of racial hatred but as a sign that Simpson received judicial equality. The only person, of which evidence was produced that person disrespected a person because of their race, was MF.

[William Anthony]

William,

Kato did say that he was running, however, was he ever asked why he was running? Was it because he saw the limo driver and wanted to let him in?

Kato testified he ran past the limo. The inference is that he was running to check on the cause of the thumps.

[William Anthony]

I see you have edited your claim without admitting you were mistaken when you said there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the civil trial that Park's phone records were used to document the time that Kato came down the pathway.

I have already posted that I do not recall ever saying that Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to establish the time of the noises. Marcia Clark used that logical reasonable inference in her closing argument in the criminal trial.

I have made the same logical and reasonable inference that Clark made based on Kaelin’s time estimate and Park’s telephone records to come to a more accurate time, than Kaelin’s guess, as to when the thumps occurred on his back wall. Just as Clark established a more accurate time, than Park’s guess, as to what time he saw Simpson enter his house. And just as Petrocelli established a more accurate time, than Kaelin’s guess, as to what time it was when he came down the Ashford pathway after leaving his room to investigate the noises.

bobaugust

You see incorrectly. I said there was the phone records were not used to document when Kato exited his room, when Kato heard the thumps, and there is evidence that Park did not see Kato come from "behind" the house and "walk"" down the Ashford Pathway.

Marcia may have persuaded you that it was a logical inference but I looked to all the testimony. :) I agree that you have parroted Ms. Clark's argument.

[William Anthony]

Whether or not Kaelin was running or walking or walking briskly neither contradicts what I believe nor does it contradict Park’s testimony that he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. You’re the only one who has ever made the false inference that just because Park didn’t say Kaelin was running than that somehow means he didn’t see him come from behind the house and down the pathway.

This was a minor irrelevant issue because it was never brought up in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

Ah, see how believing you are right may cause one to distort the facts. Park not only said that he did not see Kato running, but saw kato stand and still stand and wave at him, all of which Kato denied while going to complete his first cursory search. Because, you do not think that the discrepancies in the testimonies was pointed to in the criminal trial and the socio political production does not mean it did not happen or that it was minor or irrelevant.

[William Anthony]

I think bobaugust and I have solved some mysteries about the case. Given that Park saw a White male and that White male could not have been Kato, at the time that Park saw the White male and there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found and that the type BA blood could not have degraded to a B, then there was another White male involved, who probably left the sweat suit and panties in the washing machine in an effort to implicate Simpson.

[martin II]

The jurie's loyalties should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. They had an obligation to listen to and comprehend all the testimony in the trial. If there was something they didn't understand they could have asked for clarification. The statement by the jury of 'we take care of our own' and the black power salute by a juror are examples of hate and bias. The disrepect and racial hatred that they represent has been defended and justified by certain posters on this board. Why is that okay?

The jurors said they listened to the evidence for 9 mos.i believe they did. Why should their loyalties be with the State?i have never seen a statement by all Jurors that they "TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN" maby by one juror.The problem with some jurors making statements in a book means little as when they were asked to evaluate all of the evidence to see if the prosecution proved their case they all said no.

[martin II]

William,

Kato did say that he was running, however, was he ever asked why he was running? Was it because he saw the limo driver and wanted to let him in?

Another question is why didn't kato just call oj in the hoiuse and tell him about the noise he had heard.

[martin II]

correction
house

[martin II]

tv

just as you believe the specific issue of the sales slip means little because it has no color or size you believe on the larger issues oj was guilty.

others may believe that no color or size means the gloves she baught were never given to oj and on the larger issues he is not guilty.

TWO jurors may have believed the gloves did fit but on the larger issues the prosecution did not prove their case.

Two jurors giving their opinions on a specific issue means little when the whole of the evidence is considered.

[tv]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a trial and I understand why you have misplaced loyalties. My original question was did the jury owe MF any loyalty. You responded with the jury's loyalty should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. Nothing can be farther from the truth. You have placed your own definition on what the jury's statements and actions meant, which is not to say that you are wrong; only that you may not be right as the statement could mean making sure that a citizen (one of their own) is not convicted on such flimsy and convoluted evidence. The Black Power salute has been used by Whites to Whites, although you in the south claim never to have seen it used in that manner. However, it meant to me that it was a symbol of Blacks' need and struggle for political, social, financial and judicial equality. I see the salute not as a sign of racial hatred but as a sign that Simpson received judicial equality. The only person, of which evidence was produced that person disrespected a person because of their race, was MF.

Don't start your condescending BS by saying I don't understand the purpose of a trial. I think you need to read a little more closely. I didn't say that the jurie's loyality should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of California in that they should automatically agree with their case. I meant they are obligated to decided guilt or non-guilt by listening to and comprehending all the evidence to come to a fair decision. IMO, that wasn't done in this case. Pray tell me what purpose the black power salute served by displaying it at the end of the trial? I've never seen whites giving it to whites which doesn't mean it doesn't happen but the timing of a juror giving it at the end of this trial speaks volumes. Continue to deny what he meant by it if you like but we all know it meant as exactly what it is -- black power to overcome white oppression. That one gesture tells us more about that juror's mindset than anything he could have verbalized.

[William Anthony]

Don't start your condescending BS by saying I don't understand the purpose of a trial. I think you need to read a little more closely. I didn't say that the jurie's loyality should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of California in that they should automatically agree with their case. I meant they are obligated to decided guilt or non-guilt by listening to and comprehending all the evidence to come to a fair decision. IMO, that wasn't done in this case. Pray tell me what purpose the black power salute served by displaying it at the end of the trial? I've never seen whites giving it to whites which doesn't mean it doesn't happen but the timing of a juror giving it at the end of this trial speaks volumes. Continue to deny what he meant by it if you like but we all know it meant as exactly what it is -- black power to overcome white oppression. That one gesture tells us more about that juror's mindset than anything he could have verbalized.

This is what you said and I don't understand why you're trying to deny saying it.

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
The jurie's loyalties should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA.

I think I read close enough. However, you may want to do some reading before you decide what the salute meant or what Black Power meant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/black-power

The gesture has left us with a different opinion of its meaning but I hope we don't have a different opinion of the words spoken and alleged to have been spoken by MF.

[tv]

This is what you said and I don't understand why you're trying to deny saying it.



I think I read close enough. However, you may want to do some reading before you decide what the salute meant or what Black Power meant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/black-power

The gesture has left us with a different opinion of its meaning but I hope we don't have a different opinion of the words spoken and alleged to have been spoken by MF.

I clarified what I meant by my statement. The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. I think they didn't; you think they did. It would be refreshing if you could have one discussion on this forum without dragging Mark Fuhrman into it. The jury said Mark Fuhrman wasn't a part of their deliberations so why do you put so much emphasis on Det. Fuhrman? It's really starting to sound personal.

[martin II]

I clarified what I meant by my statement. The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. I think they didn't; you think they did. It would be refreshing if you could have one discussion on this forum without dragging Mark Fuhrman into it. The jury said Mark Fuhrman wasn't a part of their deliberations so why do you put so much emphasis on Det. Fuhrman? It's really starting to sound personal.

The power salute did not mean that that juror did not listen to the evidence.
You got that all wrong.Some whites have negative feelings about the black power salute regardless of when it is given. It is like there is something wrong with that greeting. YOU cannot twist that into something that it is not.

[martin II]

Black power salute

n.
A movement among Black Americans emphasizing racial pride and social equality through the creation of Black political and cultural institutions: “Black Power . . . calls for black people to consolidate behind their own, so that they can bargain from a position of strength” (Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton).


TV

Hopefully with the above definition you now understand the meaning of the salute.

[martin II]

I clarified what I meant by my statement. The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. I think they didn't; you think they did. It would be refreshing if you could have one discussion on this forum without dragging Mark Fuhrman into it. The jury said Mark Fuhrman wasn't a part of their deliberations so why do you put so much emphasis on Det. Fuhrman? It's really starting to sound personal.

What you may be missing is furhman , by his actions and comments made himself a central issues in the case.He did this all by himself.So why shouldn't he be discussed.

[William Anthony]

I clarified what I meant by my statement. The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. I think they didn't; you think they did. It would be refreshing if you could have one discussion on this forum without dragging Mark Fuhrman into it. The jury said Mark Fuhrman wasn't a part of their deliberations so why do you put so much emphasis on Det. Fuhrman? It's really starting to sound personal.

Please, tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the jury members were either obligated to represent the citizens or that they should have been loyal to the people of the state of CA. MF drug himself into the cases and therefore became part of discussions. The statement that MF wasn't a part of the jury's discussions seems to contradict the statement that the jury was racially biased. However, that does not stop him from being a part of my discussions. Yes, and I am surprised that it is not personal to you when you hear such vile, despicable, reprehensible and demonic words as was spoken by a member of LE.

[William Anthony]

The power salute did not mean that that juror did not listen to the evidence.
You got that all wrong.Some whites have negative feelings about the black power salute regardless of when it is given. It is like there is something wrong with that greeting. YOU cannot twist that into something that it is not.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding in that, if Blacks have feelings or racial pride and desire power in America's pressure structure, they have feelings of racial hatred.

[martin II]

I clarified what I meant by my statement. The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. I think they didn't; you think they did. It would be refreshing if you could have one discussion on this forum without dragging Mark Fuhrman into it. The jury said Mark Fuhrman wasn't a part of their deliberations so why do you put so much emphasis on Det. Fuhrman? It's really starting to sound personal.

'OBLIGATED TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS???

Are you suggesting that the jury was suppose to represent the feelings and ideas of the larger group of citizens when they listened to and evaluated the evidence? I am not sure exactly what you mean by that statment.

The jury was made up of regular citizens called to evaluate the prosecutions claims to see if they were true based on their own life experiences and their common sense. They listened to the evidence for 9months, received the judges instructions and followed the legal requirements for deliberations.
They were not required to do anything else.imo

[GreenIce]

Kato testified he ran past the limo. The inference is that he was running to check on the cause of the thumps.

William,

Does that make sense that Kato was running into danger and then suddenly realized his flashlight was too weak so he stopped?

Does it make sense that Kato was so afraid of the noise that he did not call Simpson to warn him that someone may be on the estate?

[GreenIce]

The power salute did not mean that that juror did not listen to the evidence.
You got that all wrong.Some whites have negative feelings about the black power salute regardless of when it is given. It is like there is something wrong with that greeting. YOU cannot twist that into something that it is not.

Martin,

Mr. Cryer was asked about his raising his fist to Simpson. He said that it was not the black power salute, only that he was "telling" Simpson to go and get his kids and get on with his life. He also that he felt the it Simpson may have done it but there was just too many problems with the evidence.

However, even if Mr. Cryer did give the "Black Power Salute", how much "Power" does it really have? IMO, the "Blue Wall of Silence" is much, much more powerful and it has been around a lot longer then the black power salute, IMO.

I will be honest, I still don't get why grown men swat each other's buts after a good sports play. The "Chest Bump" makes no sense and looks more like a torture move then anything else. And the only grown men that I ever see "wave" are famous people like Prince Charles and the President. I woud think a wave would be much more far reaching then a raised fist. IMO. Then again, I do understand that it may just be a "guy thing". And I don't get tatoos either!

[GreenIce]

What you may be missing is furhman , by his actions and comments made himself a central issues in the case.He did this all by himself.So why shouldn't he be discussed.

Martin,

The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that.

What many G's forget, the jurors had more problems with Vanatter and Lange. They did not believe that Vanatter was being truthful and his demeanor on the stand. The problem with Lange was that he appeared to be covering for his partner. IMO, VA and Lange convinced the jury they did suspect Simpson and that may be why there were so many problems of evidence.

Another factor with MF, I believe that many jurors felt he as so brazen with his hate talk that someone on the force had to know about this.

The problem with the G's is that they don't truly understand the evidence against Fuhrman and what it means.

IMO, it is fair to say that many famous people do have two sides, their professional life vs their personal life. I have no problem with a G saying that you should not be fooled by his public face.

However, MF's public life and personal life were the same. He said those horrible things not only on duty but off duty was well. He was not on duty when he said those things to Natalie Singer. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Mr. Cryer was asked about his raising his fist to Simpson. He said that it was not the black power salute, only that he was "telling" Simpson to go and get his kids and get on with his life. He also that he felt the it Simpson may have done it but there was just too many problems with the evidence.

However, even if Mr. Cryer did give the "Black Power Salute", how much "Power" does it really have? IMO, the "Blue Wall of Silence" is much, much more powerful and it has been around a lot longer then the black power salute, IMO.

I will be honest, I still don't get why grown men swat each other's buts after a good sports play. The "Chest Bump" makes no sense and looks more like a torture move then anything else. And the only grown men that I ever see "wave" are famous people like Prince Charles and the President. I woud think a wave would be much more far reaching then a raised fist. IMO. Then again, I do understand that it may just be a "guy thing". And I don't get tatoos either!

I think Mr Cryer is in a better position to know what he meant by the salute.
When it was made i had no thought about it at all.Yet some that have little understanding of certain interatctions between blacks just as they may have little understandings of certain interactions between two Asains,Africans or other cultures claim they know what the salute meant or that they know when it should have been made.The trial was over.

PS
Do they think it was proper for Fund to walk over to the defence table and show favor by shaking their hands.

[martin II]

Martin,

The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that.

What many G's forget, the jurors had more problems with Vanatter and Lange. They did not believe that Vanatter was being truthful and his demeanor on the stand. The problem with Lange was that he appeared to be covering for his partner. IMO, VA and Lange convinced the jury they did suspect Simpson and that may be why there were so many problems of evidence.

Another factor with MF, I believe that many jurors felt he as so brazen with his hate talk that someone on the force had to know about this.

The problem with the G's is that they don't truly understand the evidence against Fuhrman and what it means.

IMO, it is fair to say that many famous people do have two sides, their professional life vs their personal life. I have no problem with a G saying that you should not be fooled by his public face.

However, MF's public life and personal life were the same. He said those horrible things not only on duty but off duty was well. He was not on duty when he said those things to Natalie Singer. IMO.


i agree
I believe the jury just put furhman to the side because they already knew he was a racist that lied on the stand. During deliberations they had questions about other testimony but not about furhman.One juror did say vanhatter lied on the stand and they did not believe him. There were many big problems with the prosecutions claims.The prosecution had the problem of telling the jury a complete sensible story that they could understand and believe. The many problems prevented them from doing so.

Furhman was a racist regardless of where he was and he did not mind letting people know it.Even the people here that support him know it.
His claim that 'IF I GO DOWN THE CASE GOES DOWN" was made because he knew he was a central part of the case.So he deserves to be discussed when ever the case is discussed.No need to leave him out. imo

[bobaugust]

You see incorrectly. I said there was the phone records were not used to document when Kato exited his room, when Kato heard the thumps, and there is evidence that Park did not see Kato come from "behind" the house and "walk"" down the Ashford Pathway.

Marcia may have persuaded you that it was a logical inference but I looked to all the testimony. :) I agree that you have parroted Ms. Clark's argument.

You are incorrect. You said in your post #8725, “there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the socio political production that Park's phone records document the time that Kato ran down the pathway…”

In the civil trial Petrocelli did use Park’s telephone records and Park’s estimate as to how long it was before he finished his phone call to establish the time when Park saw Kaelin come down the pathway.

November 20, 1996 Park

Q. Okay. From the moment that you saw that person appear to your left on the property inside the gates, to the end of the call with Dale St. John, about how much time elapsed?
A. Thirty seconds.
Q. So, looking at the cell phone records, if you got off the phone with Dale St. John at 10:55 and 12, seconds you believe you saw the person with blond hair appear to the left at around approximately 10:54 and 30 seconds p.m.?
A. Correct.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Ah, see how believing you are right may cause one to distort the facts. Park not only said that he did not see Kato running, but saw kato stand and still stand and wave at him, all of which Kato denied while going to complete his first cursory search. Because, you do not think that the discrepancies in the testimonies was pointed to in the criminal trial and the socio political production does not mean it did not happen or that it was minor or irrelevant.

The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

Many times the defence will not call out the witness on every point especially when the problem is obvious.

You seem to take it upon yourself to say what is a minor or major detail.That was the job of the jury to believe kato when he says he was running.Because if he was running as he says he was he could not be standing and there is more reason to believe park did not see him running in the dark.

When the testimony does not agree with you, you call the problem minor.How
is that?

[martin II]

The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

There is no phone records to indicate who parke saw first.There is testimony about the coach lights that prove that kato made his first search.This testimony proves that kato was NOT STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK as park said and that is not a minor detail regardless of how you try to cook it.

[martin II]

Martin,

The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that.

What many G's forget, the jurors had more problems with Vanatter and Lange. They did not believe that Vanatter was being truthful and his demeanor on the stand. The problem with Lange was that he appeared to be covering for his partner. IMO, VA and Lange convinced the jury they did suspect Simpson and that may be why there were so many problems of evidence.

Another factor with MF, I believe that many jurors felt he as so brazen with his hate talk that someone on the force had to know about this.

The problem with the G's is that they don't truly understand the evidence against Fuhrman and what it means.

IMO, it is fair to say that many famous people do have two sides, their professional life vs their personal life. I have no problem with a G saying that you should not be fooled by his public face.

However, MF's public life and personal life were the same. He said those horrible things not only on duty but off duty was well. He was not on duty when he said those things to Natalie Singer. IMO.


I think that furhman more than anyone knew that all the stuff had not come out about him and he made sure it did not come out by taking the 5th

[tv]

Black power salute

n.
A movement among Black Americans emphasizing racial pride and social equality through the creation of Black political and cultural institutions: “Black Power . . . calls for black people to consolidate behind their own, so that they can bargain from a position of strength” (Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton).


TV

Hopefully with the above definition you now understand the meaning of the salute.

You provided the definition which is almost verbatim what one of the jury members said. I don't get what you think you're helping me understand.

[tv]

Please, tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the jury members were either obligated to represent the citizens or that they should have been loyal to the people of the state of CA. MF drug himself into the cases and therefore became part of discussions. The statement that MF wasn't a part of the jury's discussions seems to contradict the statement that the jury was racially biased. However, that does not stop him from being a part of my discussions. Yes, and I am surprised that it is not personal to you when you hear such vile, despicable, reprehensible and demonic words as was spoken by a member of LE.

It's been my understanding that a jury of one's peers is a representative group from the community. In researching it, I see there's some controversy about who they represent. That's okay...I'll keep researching until I have a better understanding of it. I'd say in this case they represented the part of the population that hates LE.

I'm going to tell you again that I'm not having a discussion about race with you. I've never defended his comments on the tapes as being acceptable language. I gave my opinion on that a long time ago and I'm under no obligation to keep letting you hit me over the head with what he said. One thing I know for sure -- no matter what Mark Fuhrman said it doesn't make OJ Simpson innocent. The jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman but I don't believe them. They also said the Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches and we know that's a crock. We also know they weren't aware that the blood of OJS was found on the Rockingham glove. There's several things about this jury that troubles me. :shrug:

[martin II]

You provided the definition which is almost verbatim what one of the jury members said. I don't get what you think you're helping me understand.

A black power salute as defined has nothing to do with the oj trial or the juries action in comming to a veridct. It was a call for blacks to come togeather and do more for themselves to make more progress. you seem to be saying you believe it meant something negative or that the jury members were not fair or biased in comming to their verdict. I was only trying to give you more insight into the meaning so you could possible become more informed on the subject of the meaning of the salute.imo

[martin II]

It's been my understanding that a jury of one's peers is a representative group from the community. In researching it, I see there's some controversy about who they represent. That's okay...I'll keep researching until I have a better understanding of it. I'd say in this case they represented the part of the population that hates LE.

I'm going to tell you again that I'm not having a discussion about race with you. I've never defended his comments on the tapes as being acceptable language. I gave my opinion on that a long time ago and I'm under no obligation to keep letting you hit me over the head with what he said. One thing I know for sure -- no matter what Mark Fuhrman said it doesn't make OJ Simpson innocent. The jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman but I don't believe them. They also said the Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches and we know that's a crock. We also know they weren't aware that the blood of OJS was found on the Rockingham glove. There's several things about this jury that troubles me. :shrug:


It would be illegal for the jury to represent anyone but themselves in a trial.This may be why they are told not to talk to anyone about the case.

[tv]

Originally Posted by GreenIce
Martin,

The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that.
************************************************** ***********************

Some posters need to know that juries are not supposed to deliberate or decide on guilt before deliberations officially begin in the jury room. The jury is also not allowed to deliberate unless all members of the jury are present. If they had already decided on the verdict before they even got to Fuhrman this jury wasn't qualified to sit for this case. I think it's astonishing that Det. Fuhrman testified in March and the trial didn't end until the end of September and there's at least one poster that thinks it's okay if the verdict was decided six months before all the evidence was presented. Since the clairvoyant says this was the mindset of the jury it must be so.

[martin II]

It's been my understanding that a jury of one's peers is a representative group from the community. In researching it, I see there's some controversy about who they represent. That's okay...I'll keep researching until I have a better understanding of it. I'd say in this case they represented the part of the population that hates LE.

I'm going to tell you again that I'm not having a discussion about race with you. I've never defended his comments on the tapes as being acceptable language. I gave my opinion on that a long time ago and I'm under no obligation to keep letting you hit me over the head with what he said. One thing I know for sure -- no matter what Mark Fuhrman said it doesn't make OJ Simpson innocent. The jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman but I don't believe them. They also said the Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches and we know that's a crock. We also know they weren't aware that the blood of OJS was found on the Rockingham glove. There's several things about this jury that troubles me. :shrug:

When you say the jury.They believed this or that are you speaking about all 12 jurors or one or two.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by GreenIce
Martin,

The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that.
************************************************** ***********************

Some posters need to know that juries are not supposed to deliberate or decide on guilt before deliberations officially begin in the jury room. The jury is also not allowed to deliberate unless all members of the jury are present. If they had already decided on the verdict before they even got to Fuhrman this jury wasn't qualified to sit for this case. I think it's astonishing that Det. Fuhrman testified in March and the trial didn't end until the end of September and there's at least one poster that thinks it's okay if the verdict was decided six months before all the evidence was presented. Since the clairvoyant says this was the mindset of the jury it must be so.

The jury had plenty of time to decide if they believed any witness when terstimony was given. They did not deliberate or decide on guilty until deliberations started.
I think you are misquoting the posters comments.

The jury deliberated and began the process of asking questions, discussing the issues, answering questions and finally voting. The deliberations could have started with questions other than those about furhman.When they came to a majority of not guilty vote there was no reason to them take up the furhman issue.I think that is what they meant by furhman did not impact their vote.

[tv]

When you say the jury.They believed this or that are you speaking about all 12 jurors or one or two.

I haven't seen any of them denounce or disagree with any of the statements or actions that came out after the trial.

[tv]

The jury had plenty of time to decide if they believed any witness when terstimony was given. They did not deliberate until deliberations started.

Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

[martin II]

Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

Funny

I took her statement to mean by the time they got to him in deliberations they had decided to vote not guilty.

[tv]

The jury had plenty of time to decide if they believed any witness when terstimony was given. They did not deliberate or decide on guilty until deliberations started.
I think you are misquoting the posters comments.

The jury deliberated and began the process of asking questions, discussing the issues, answering questions and finally voting. The deliberations could have started with questions other than those about furhman.When they came to a majority of not guilty vote there was no reason to them take up the furhman issue.I think that is what they meant by furhman did not impact their vote.

I didn't misquote the poster. I copied and pasted it into my post. You need to read her original post again.

[martin II]

Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

I did not read that GI said the verdict was decided on before furhman TESTIFIED.can you show that part of her post to me where she said what you claim.That the verdict was decided BEFORE FURHMAN TESTIFIED?

[tv]

Funny

I took her statement to mean by the time they got to him in deliberations they had decided to vote not guilty.

That's not what she said. She said by the time Fuhrman testified the jury had already decided it had to be a not-guilty verdict. How would you feel if they had decided guilt six months before the end of the trial? You don't have to defend everything GreenIce says. It just makes you look as silly as she is.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

The above is what you claim gi said. I read her post and did not see where she said THE VERDICT WAS DECIDED BEFORE FURHMAN TERSTIFIED
SHOW ME THAT IN HER POST.

[tv]

I did not read that GI said the verdict was decided on before furhman TESTIFIED.can you show that part of her post to me where she said what you claim.That the verdict was decided BEFORE FURHMAN TESTIFIED?

Since they didn't consider him during deliberations what else could she mean?

[martin II]

TV
Here is her post.

show me where she said before furhman testified.
ps she did say "in the jury room" which means deliberations.

GIS post.

"The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that."

[tv]

TV
Here is her post.

show me where she said before furhman testified.
ps she did say "in the jury room" which means deliberations.

GIS post.

"The reason why MF did not play a huge role in the jury room is because by the time they got to him, they already realized they had to vote not guilty. In other words, there as enough reasonable doubt even before they got to him. He was also discounted because he did lie on the stand and the jurors just left it at that."

They never got to him in the jury room, remember? According to the jury he played no role at all and neither did the blood evidence. I have to agree with GreenIce about one thing -- it was all decided when they went in. They had two people that voted guilty to begin with and it's my opinion that they were probably intimidated into changing their vote. I don't mind if you want to defend GreenIce. I may have misunderstood her wording because I seldom read or pay attention to what she says and she doesn't express herself very well at times.

[martin II]

Since they didn't consider him during deliberations what else could she mean?

You claim she said BEFORE FURHMAN TERSTIFIED in her post.WRONGThat is not in her post so your claim is wrong.

She could mean what her post said.In deliberations, the jury room, and before the subject of furhman came up they had voted not guilty.That is exactly what her post said not what you tried to calim it said.

Since it is in black and white, Who do you think looks silly now.

[tv]

You claim she said BEFORE FURHMAN TERSTIFIED in her post.WRONGThat is not in her post so your claim is wrong.

She could mean what her post said.In deliberations, the jury room, and before the subject of furhman came up they had voted not guilty.That is exactly what her post said not what you tried to calim it said.

Since it is in black and white, Who do you think looks silly now.

I definitely look silly for deciding to talk to you at all. Anytime I get involved with you or the nut I regret it.

[martin II]

They never got to him in the jury room, remember? According to the jury he played no role at all and neither did the blood evidence. I have to agree with GreenIce about one thing -- it was all decided when they went in. They had two people that voted guilty to begin with and it's my opinion that they were probably intimidated into changing their vote. I don't mind if you want to defend GreenIce. I may have misunderstood her wording because I seldom read or pay attention to what she says and she doesn't express herself very well at times.

Her post are clear to me. The white lady said she changed her vote to not guilty because she believed vanhatter lied to the jury and she though furhmam could have planted the glove.

i don't think gi said it was decided when they went in either.is that another calim by you?

[martin II]

i definitely look silly for deciding to talk to you at all. Anytime i get involved with you or the nut i regret it.

you made the false claim. Not me

[tv]

Her post are clear to me. The white lady said she changed her vote to not guilty because she believed vanhatter lied to the jury and she though furhmam could have planted the glove.

i don't think gi said it was decided when they went in either.is that another calim by you?

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

[tv]

you made the false claim. Not me

I interpreted the post when I first read it as meaning his testimony because Fuhrman didn't enter into their deliberations -- it made sense to me that she was talking about his testimony. If that's wrong, it's not the end of the world. I really don't care. :shrug: I'm sorry I responded to you at all. I tend to not think things through when I'm tired. I'm going back to paying no attention to you. I'm sure you won't mind. ;)

[GreenIce]

I think that furhman more than anyone knew that all the stuff had not come out about him and he made sure it did not come out by taking the 5th

Martin,

I disagree with you about Fuhrman. IMO, the pressure that was applied to Capt York to lie about Fuhrman had to come from an agency that had the power to do so.

There was no way Fuhrman, by himself, could have made sure that stuff didn't come out about him, however, he did know that if the stuff about him came out, then it was going to come out about a lot more people--and he was just the person to do it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

i agree
I believe the jury just put furhman to the side because they already knew he was a racist that lied on the stand. During deliberations they had questions about other testimony but not about furhman.One juror did say vanhatter lied on the stand and they did not believe him. There were many big problems with the prosecutions claims.The prosecution had the problem of telling the jury a complete sensible story that they could understand and believe. The many problems prevented them from doing so.

Furhman was a racist regardless of where he was and he did not mind letting people know it.Even the people here that support him know it.
His claim that 'IF I GO DOWN THE CASE GOES DOWN" was made because he knew he was a central part of the case.So he deserves to be discussed when ever the case is discussed.No need to leave him out. imo

Martin,

I have posted this before but lets take MF out of the trial. Keep every thing the same but Detective Phillips found the glove. What changes? Woud the fact that Detective Phillips was not a racist change any questions regarding the glove? IMO, the glove was planted and I do believe that MF is the most likely person to have done it, but that does not mean he was the only person who had motive to be involved in the murders and make a sweet trail right from Bundy to Rockingham.

I still don't understand how Ito did not allow that statement into the trial about the glove but he probably has known a lot longer then me that the police hold the most power in our legal system. IMO.

IMO, G's got to focus on MF because he is the only ammo they have. Take MF out it, that means they have to deal with the blood play hide seek in three different locations and other problems of evidence.

It appears to me that TV loves to quote the jury that "we have to take care of own" when she is doing the exact same thing MF. She alone with some other G's are protecting one of their own. IMO. It is a double standard that they are not pleased about. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think Mr Cryer is in a better position to know what he meant by the salute.
When it was made i had no thought about it at all.Yet some that have little understanding of certain interatctions between blacks just as they may have little understandings of certain interactions between two Asains,Africans or other cultures claim they know what the salute meant or that they know when it should have been made.The trial was over.

PS
Do they think it was proper for Fund to walk over to the defence table and show favor by shaking their hands.

Martin,

IMO, the black power salute was a symbol of wanting equality in their own country. The power salute was never a symbol of violence, it was not a call to arms, it was a call for solidarity for their people to fight for their rights that all Americans were suppose to have in our country. IMO.

I do realize some of these groups felt violence was the only way to go, but IMO, I think it became pretty obvious that violence was not going to help their cause. Of course there are the fanactics who, IMO, love the violence and never had the passion for the cause--only cared about the violence. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I learned a couple of things that seems to support some of the planting in this case. In Lange and VA's book, they have a picture of the Bronco and it has white cards where they found stains. However, there is no marker to indicate where blood was smeared on the console. How can that be? Doesn't this support the many eye witnesses who didn't see blood?

Also, like in Lange and VA's book, Clark also says the only evidence they had on the Rockingham glove was a possible that there were 3 people's blood in a mixture and the third person could have been Simpson. But again, if that tiny blood drop on the inside of the glove was there, surely that would have been noticed? I find it impossible to believe that all these people missed this. First the socks and now the glove?

Clark wanted the best SID people at the crime scene. Well the only who was on call, couldn't go to any crime scene because of leg injury, I think a broken leg. Well, if a broken leg prevented this person to going to a crime scene, then why was he on call?

Clark was not happy about Fung because of VA' comments about him, that he was just "alright". She then calls Fung and another person into her office and looks over the crime sheets---she never says that much of it wasn't filled in. How is it possible Clark did not see all the blanks and unchecked boxes on the forms?

Why didn't Clark have Fung's superiors go over his paperwork right away? Again, she has this sinking feeling about him but does nothing about it?

[bobaugust]

The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

The criminal trial jury only knew what Kaelin testified to in the criminal trial when he said he “walked the pathway.” Those jurors didn’t know what Kaelin had said in the grand jury about running down the sidewalk because Simpson’s attorneys never brought it up. They understood that it was not relevant to Park’s testimony that he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is no phone records to indicate who parke saw first.There is testimony about the coach lights that prove that kato made his first search.This testimony proves that kato was NOT STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK as park said and that is not a minor detail regardless of how you try to cook it.

Of course Park’s telephone records do not tell us who Park saw first, Park tells us that. Park’s telephone records document the time Park ended his telephone conversation that he was having when he first saw Kaelin and then Simpson. The coach lights have nothing to do with Park first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house on his way to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I definitely look silly for deciding to talk to you at all. Anytime I get involved with you or the nut I regret it.

hhmmm

i thought you would be pleased that i would help you correct your error.i had no idea it would piss you off like this. hahaha

[martin II]

I interpreted the post when I first read it as meaning his testimony because Fuhrman didn't enter into their deliberations -- it made sense to me that she was talking about his testimony. If that's wrong, it's not the end of the world. I really don't care. :shrug: I'm sorry I responded to you at all. I tend to not think things through when I'm tired. I'm going back to paying no attention to you. I'm sure you won't mind. ;)

you made a specific claim that was not in her post and i thought you needed some help. its ok.

[tv]

hhmmm

i thought you would be pleased that i would help you correct your error.i had no idea it would piss you off like this. hahaha

You don't mean enough to me to be mad at you for anything but I don't think I made an error. IMO, the the majority of the jury members had made their minds up before they got to the jury room but the joke was on your hero. He never got back his image and that's what matters more to him than anything. No more Hertz, no more speaking engagements, no more sports commentating, no more Heishman trophy, and on top of that his country club dumped him. He had to run to Florida to keep his money from Goldman -- at least the money we know about. HaHaHa, now he's sitting in jail where he might gain a little prestige back entertaining the cons with his stories of days gone by ---way by. :D

[martin II]

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

creating more false claims i see.

[martin II]

I haven't seen any of them denounce or disagree with any of the statements or actions that came out after the trial.

so in your world you just say all 12 agreed. you think they should have been concered about what two people said that voted not guilty?

[martin II]

The jurie's loyalties should have been entirely on the side of the People of the State of CA. They had an obligation to listen to and comprehend all the testimony in the trial. If there was something they didn't understand they could have asked for clarification. The statement by the jury of 'we take care of our own' and the black power salute by a juror are examples of hate and bias. The disrepect and racial hatred that they represent has been defended and justified by certain posters on this board. Why is that okay?

TV

When i see your steadfast protection and support of the crook furhman i get the impression you are trying "TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN"

[martin II]

You don't mean enough to me to be mad at you for anything but I don't think I made an error. IMO, the the majority of the jury members had made their minds up before they got to the jury room but the joke was on your hero. He never got back his image and that's what matters more to him than anything. No more Hertz, no more speaking engagements, no more sports commentating, no more Heishman trophy, and on top of that his country club dumped him. He had to run to Florida to keep his money from Goldman -- at least the money we know about. HaHaHa, now he's sitting in jail where he might gain a little prestige back entertaining the cons with his stories of days gone by ---way by. :D

Well i guess i should be pleased that you are not mad at me. i understand your' RUSH TO JUDGEMENT' and why you did so.

[tv]

TV

When i see your steadfast protection and support of the crook furhman i get the impression you are trying "TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN"

I've given you my opinion on Fuhrman and I'm not taking the bait from you. I couldn't care less what you think of me. I support the work the LAPD did in this case and he was a member of the LAPD at that time. Make of it what you will. :shrug:

[tv]

Well i guess i should be pleased that you are not mad at me. i understand your' RUSH TO JUDGEMENT' and why you did so.

Speaking of rushing to judgement -- I just ordered Armanda Cooley's book. It should be interesting even though I've heard it's barely readable.

[tv]

so in your world you just say all 12 agreed. you think they should have been concered about what two people said that voted not guilty?
Who should have been concerned?

[martin II]

Speaking of rushing to judgement -- I just ordered Armanda Cooley's book. It should be interesting even though I've heard it's barely readable.

She may not be as smart as you think you are.
you think she didnt hire a ghost writer?

[martin II]

Who should have been concerned?

the other ten

[William Anthony]

William,

Does that make sense that Kato was running into danger and then suddenly realized his flashlight was too weak so he stopped?

Does it make sense that Kato was so afraid of the noise that he did not call Simpson to warn him that someone may be on the estate?

No and No. :)

[William Anthony]

You are incorrect. You said in your post #8725, “there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the socio political production that Park's phone records document the time that Kato ran down the pathway…”

In the civil trial Petrocelli did use Park’s telephone records and Park’s estimate as to how long it was before he finished his phone call to establish the time when Park saw Kaelin come down the pathway.

November 20, 1996 Park

Q. Okay. From the moment that you saw that person appear to your left on the property inside the gates, to the end of the call with Dale St. John, about how much time elapsed?
A. Thirty seconds.
Q. So, looking at the cell phone records, if you got off the phone with Dale St. John at 10:55 and 12, seconds you believe you saw the person with blond hair appear to the left at around approximately 10:54 and 30 seconds p.m.?
A. Correct.

bobaugust

In your haste to prove me wrong, you always prove me right. :) You correctly state what I said, which is, " You said in your post #8725, “there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the socio political production that Park's phone records document the time that Kato ran down the pathway…” Since Park never said he saw Kato running down the pathway, the phone records could not be used to document to what Kato testified to doing, which Park did not see. Thanks.

[tv]

She may not be as smart as you think you are.
you think she didnt hire a ghost writer?

Don't know and don't care.

[martin II]

Speaking of rushing to judgement -- I just ordered Armanda Cooley's book. It should be interesting even though I've heard it's barely readable.

i have not read her book but did hear her comments to the media from her front door steps.
what i think about all the books is that most were directed to the larger audience that wanted to buy books that had negative comments about the verdict or that supported some of the prosecutions claims as this is the way to get that group to buy the book.example is that you seem to be overjoyed at Bess's comments about the gloves.i doubt you would have purchased the book if Bess had written THE GLOVE DID NOT FIT.

The glove must not have meant that much to Bess when she voted not guilty.

[William Anthony]

The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

Because you feel all those discrepancies are minor, does not mean that everyone must agree with you simply because you said they were. The fact that you do not see contradicted testimony as "undisputed fact", which is not the case as it is only evidence from which facts are arrived, does not mean that the testimony wasn't disputed. :)

Because you think that something is irrelevant does not make it so, because Justice Sachel and I are the only judges on this board, even though we are currently on sabbatical. :)

[William Anthony]

You provided the definition which is almost verbatim what one of the jury members said. I don't get what you think you're helping me understand.

That says consolidate behind their own, not take care of their own. I wondered how long it would take you to pick that one sentence out and ignore the context of the sentence and the content of the link.

[William Anthony]

It's been my understanding that a jury of one's peers is a representative group from the community. In researching it, I see there's some controversy about who they represent. That's okay...I'll keep researching until I have a better understanding of it. I'd say in this case they represented the part of the population that hates LE.

I'm going to tell you again that I'm not having a discussion about race with you. I've never defended his comments on the tapes as being acceptable language. I gave my opinion on that a long time ago and I'm under no obligation to keep letting you hit me over the head with what he said. One thing I know for sure -- no matter what Mark Fuhrman said it doesn't make OJ Simpson innocent. The jury said they didn't consider Mark Fuhrman but I don't believe them. They also said the Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches and we know that's a crock. We also know they weren't aware that the blood of OJS was found on the Rockingham glove. There's several things about this jury that troubles me. :shrug:

There are several things about the prosecution that troubles me. I hope you keep researching and discover who the jury allegedly represents. It is my understanding that they are obligated to be an impartial trier of fact.

[William Anthony]

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

If that is true, from whom did they learn the concept of segregation?

[William Anthony]

The criminal trial jury only knew what Kaelin testified to in the criminal trial when he said he “walked the pathway.” Those jurors didn’t know what Kaelin had said in the grand jury about running down the sidewalk because Simpson’s attorneys never brought it up. They understood that it was not relevant to Park’s testimony that he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

bobaugust

Are you arguing with yourself or trying to clarify a point to yourself?

Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
The fact that either Park or Kaelin may have perceived or recalled some minor details differently such as running, walking, running briskly, stopping, standing, or gesturing does not change the undisputed fact that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact that Simpson’s attorneys never even brought up these minor discrepancies makes them irrelevant to where and when Park first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

You have stated that this is a "search for truth" and that we should consider all the evidence and the information. Now, you are trying to limit the conversation to what the criminal jury knew. What about what we know in this search for truth?

[martin II]

Speaking of rushing to judgement -- I just ordered Armanda Cooley's book. It should be interesting even though I've heard it's barely readable.

who told you that?

[tv]

That says consolidate behind their own, not take care of their own. I wondered how long it would take you to pick that one sentence out and ignore the context of the sentence and the content of the link.

Now your wondering has come to an end.

[tv]

who told you that?

It was in a couple of reviews I read on the book. I'll come to my own judgement about it after I read it.

[tv]

If that is true, from whom did they learn the concept of segregation?

Having been on the receiving end of segregation it looks to me like they would have understood how damaging it is and avoided it. More payback?

[William Anthony]

Now your wondering has come to an end.

I am just relieved that you did not disappoint me.:)

[tv]

There are several things about the prosecution that troubles me. I hope you keep researching and discover who the jury allegedly represents. It is my understanding that they are obligated to be an impartial trier of fact.

As an aspiring lawyer I'm sure you're right. Too bad they didn't fulfill their obligation.

[William Anthony]

Having been on the receiving end of segregation it looks to me like they would have understood how damaging it is and avoided it. More payback?

I think they just might have been trying not to be offensive as they understood the associations were not wanted and no need to be hypocrites.

[tv]

I am just relieved that you did not disappoint me.:)

Glad to be of service. :beer:

[martin II]

That says consolidate behind their own, not take care of their own. I wondered how long it would take you to pick that one sentence out and ignore the context of the sentence and the content of the link.

It did not take long that is for sure.

[tv]

I think they just might have been trying not to be offensive as they understood the associations were not wanted and no need to be hypocrites.

How do you know the associations weren't wanted?

[William Anthony]

As an aspiring lawyer I'm sure you're right. Too bad they didn't fulfill their obligation.

There is no ruling that they did not and their verdict still stands, despite the displeasure to those who did not understand that the jury was not obligated to represent the people of CA.

[William Anthony]

Glad to be of service. :beer:

You continue to revive the amount of my trust in mankind.:beer:

[William Anthony]

It did not take long that is for sure.

Service with rapidness.

[tv]

You continue to revive the amount of my trust in mankind.:beer:

As do you, mine.

[martin II]

Having been on the receiving end of segregation it looks to me like they would have understood how damaging it is and avoided it. More payback?

I think your claim of jury segregation is just flat out not true.more made up stuff to attack this fine smart jury.

[William Anthony]

How do you know the associations weren't wanted?

I thought I explained that I would let the lamp of history guide my footsteps in the future. I think that is common for a lot of people.

[tv]

There is no ruling that they did not and their verdict still stands, despite the displeasure to those who did not understand that the jury was not obligated to represent the people of CA.

You're really desperate. Anytime you think you've caught me in a mistake you're like a shark smelling blood and you won't let it go. I told you I'll be reading up more on it -- I'll come to my own conclusion on the truth of the matter. Until then, don't you have anything that pertains to the case to discuss or is this truly the race discussion board and not the OJ Simpson trial board?

[tv]

I thought I explained that I would let the lamp of history guide my footsteps in the future. I think that is common for a lot of people.

In other words -- you did it to me so I'll do it to you. The problem with your lamp is that it's running out of oil and the wick needs trimming. ;)

[William Anthony]

You're really desperate. Anytime you think you've caught me in a mistake you're like a shark smelling blood and you won't let it go. I told you I'll be reading up more on it -- I'll come to my own conclusion on the truth of the matter. Until then, don't you have anything that pertains to the case to discuss or is this truly the race discussion board and not the OJ Simpson trial board?

Are you suggesting that the jury is not part of the case?

[William Anthony]

In other words -- you did it to me so I'll do it to you. The problem with your lamp is that it's running out of oil and the wick needs trimming. ;)

There is nothing wrong with my oil or wick and it is not quid pro quo. It is a matter of understanding and the Whites could have simply said, if they did not, we don't believe in segregation.

[tv]

I think your claim of jury segregation is just flat out not true.more made up stuff to attack this fine smart jury.

The rumor is that it's in Armanda Cooley's book. I don't know if it's true or not but I'll let you know. :)

[tv]

There is nothing wrong with my oil or wick and it is not quid pro quo. It is a matter of understanding and the Whites could have simply said, if they did not, we don't believe in segregation.

Maybe they did. :shrug:

[martin II]

You're really desperate. Anytime you think you've caught me in a mistake you're like a shark smelling blood and you won't let it go. I told you I'll be reading up more on it -- I'll come to my own conclusion on the truth of the matter. Until then, don't you have anything that pertains to the case to discuss or is this truly the race discussion board and not the OJ Simpson trial board?

Exactly how would the jury represent the citizens. take a poll just before deliberations to see what is required to represent them?

[tv]

Are you suggesting that the jury is not part of the case?

No, are you hallucinating?

[tv]

Exactly how would the jury represent the citizens. take a poll just before deliberations to see what is required to represent them?
Go away, martin. You're so annoying.

[William Anthony]

The rumor is that it's in Armanda Cooley's book. I don't know if it's true or not but I'll let you know. :)

If the Blacks were segregated, does the not mean that the Whites were also?

[tv]

If the Blacks were segregated, does the not mean that the Whites were also?

I repeat: I'll let you know when I read the book.

[William Anthony]

No, are you hallucinating?

Then that is what we were discussing your statement that Blacks segregated the jury, and that the jury was obligated to represent the people of CA. Are you hallucinating?

[William Anthony]

I repeat: I'll let you know when I read the book.

You have to read a book to see that, if Blacks drink from this fountain only and Whites drink from another fountain only, that Blacks and Whites are segregated, correct?

[tv]

Then that is what we were discussing your statement that Blacks segregated the jury, and that the jury was obligated to represent the people of CA. Are you hallucinating?

I told you that I've found out that there is some controversy about who a jury represents. I'm going to research it further. I have read that the black members of the jury segregated themselves from the others. I don't know if it's true or not. After I finish reading Ms. Cooley and associate's book I'll tell you what I found out. If you'd like to know sooner or don't trust what I say then read it yourself.

[tv]

You have to read a book to see that, if Blacks drink from this fountain only and Whites drink from another fountain only, that Blacks and Whites are segregated, correct?

You're not making any sense.

[William Anthony]

I told you that I've found out that there is some controversy about who a jury represents. I'm going to research it further. I have read that the black members of the jury segregated themselves from the others. I don't know if it's true or not. After I finish reading Ms. Cooley and associate's book I'll tell you what I found out. If you'd like to know sooner or don't trust what I say then read it yourself.

Controversy in whose mind? The right to a jury trial belongs to the defendant. I think it would be stupid of a defendant to request a jury trial, when the jury is obligated to represent the people of the state. I think you miss the point on segregation. The Blacks fought against it. Why didn't the White jurors, if they did not?

[William Anthony]

You're not making any sense.

Segregation affects both races, does it not or can't you understand that, as you see it beneficial to one race, depending on how the power is segregated?

[tv]

Controversy in whose mind? The right to a jury trial belongs to the defendant. I think it would be stupid of a defendant to request a jury trial, when the jury is obligated to represent the people of the state. I think you miss the point on segregation. The Blacks fought against it. Why didn't the White jurors, if they did not?

I think you're making too much out of the word 'segregation' in regards to this jury. The black jurors separated themselves from the others -- in other words they didn't have anything to do with them. I doubt it extended to water fountains.

[tv]

Segregation affects both races, does it not or can't you understand that, as you see it beneficial to one race, depending on how the power is segregated?

I already said it was damaging. I also already said many times I'm not discussing race with you. I hear there are message boards and forums of all kinds out there in cyber space that deals with race. This is the OJ Simpson trial forum. Just a friendly reminder.

[martin II]

Controversy in whose mind? The right to a jury trial belongs to the defendant. I think it would be stupid of a defendant to request a jury trial, when the jury is obligated to represent the people of the state. I think you miss the point on segregation. The Blacks fought against it. Why didn't the White jurors, if they did not?

did they jury sit in different chairs?generally blacks don't segregate so who did the segregation if there was any?

[martin II]

I already said it was damaging. I also already said many times I'm not discussing race with you. I hear there are message boards and forums of all kinds out there in cyber space that deals with race. This is the OJ Simpson trial forum. Just a friendly reminder.

but you brought up the claim that there was segregation

[William Anthony]

I already said it was damaging. I also already said many times I'm not discussing race with you. I hear there are message boards and forums of all kinds out there in cyber space that deals with race. This is the OJ Simpson trial forum. Just a friendly reminder.

Just a friendly reminder that you brought up the subject of racial segregation allegedly perpetrated by the Blacks on the jury. Just a friendly reminder that, if you do not want to discuss race, then don't make posts about race.

[tv]

Just a friendly reminder that you brought up the subject of racial segregation allegedly perpetrated by the Blacks on the jury. Just a friendly reminder that, if you do not want to discuss race, then don't make posts about race.

It was pertaining to the jury and the trial. I don't want to talk about race stretching back centuries and take the blame for your problems in life. Can I be any clearer than that?

[William Anthony]

I think you're making too much out of the word 'segregation' in regards to this jury. The black jurors separated themselves from the others -- in other words they didn't have anything to do with them. I doubt it extended to water fountains.

That is what segregation means and racial segregation means a separation of the races, which is the word you used. Some types of racial segregation is not permitted. I think it was Justice Rehnquist, who said that with the freedom of association comes the right not to associate.

[tv]

That is what segregation means and racial segregation means a separation of the races, which is the word you used. Some types of racial segregation is not permitted. I think it was Justice Rehnquist, who said that with the freedom of association comes the right not to associate.

They had every right not to associate -- I was just repeating what I heard. It doesn't really matter to me if they did it I was just curious as to the reason.

[William Anthony]

It was pertaining to the jury and the trial. I don't want to talk about race stretching back centuries and take the blame for your problems in life. Can I be any clearer than that?

I see you just want to make statements, such as the Black jurors segregated themselves and that was intimidating to the White jurors without discussing any context in which that may have caused that to occur, either recently or in the past. It is just enough for you to make those types of statements but you do not feel that I have a right to expound on them. You feel that you have the right to say that I am like a shark smelling blood, when you make a mistake in your post but then you have commented in several posts about what you felt was GreenIce's mistake. I don't think that comports with my definition of equality. You feel like you have a right to remind me but I do not have the right to remind you that you brought the subject up. That does not comport with my sense of equality.

[William Anthony]

They had every right not to associate -- I was just repeating what I heard. It doesn't really matter to me if they did it I was just curious as to the reason.

That's what we were engaging in a discussion about and you wanted to end the discussion. I was simply trying to explain to you possible reasons and that wounds leave scars that show long into the future.

[tv]

I see you just want to make statements, such as the Black jurors segregated themselves and that was intimidating to the White jurors without discussing any context in which that may have caused that to occur, either recently or in the past. It is just enough for you to make those types of statements but you do not feel that I have a right to expound on them. You feel that you have the right to say that I am like a shark smelling blood, when you make a mistake in your post but then you have commented in several posts about what you felt was GreenIce's mistake. I don't think that comports with my definition of equality. You feel like you have a right to remind me but I do not have the right to remind you that you brought the subject up. That does not comport with my sense of equality.

You have no problem pointing out my mistakes so please stop whining about it. It just gets so tiresome when you go on and on. I can't stop you from reminding me ad infinitum but you can't stop me from complaining about it. You're really not in your usual Sunday mood today, Mr. Anthony. The wrong side of the bed again?

By the way, the difference between GreenIce and me is that my mistakes are honest ones.

[tv]

That's what we were engaging in a discussion about and you wanted to end the discussion. I was simply trying to explain to you possible reasons and that wounds leave scars that show long into the future.

All I did was say that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others and you just keep on about it. It may not even be true or may have been misrepresented. I'll tell you when I read the book. I've said before I'm sure the ladies of the jury were lovely ladies. What more can I say since I don't know them personally?

[William Anthony]

You have no problem pointing out my mistakes so please stop whining about it. It just gets so tiresome when you go on and on. I can't stop you from reminding me ad infinitum but you can't stop me from complaining about it. You're really not in your usual Sunday mood today, Mr. Anthony. The wrong side of the bed again?

By the way, the difference between GreenIce and me is that my mistakes are honest ones.


I wasn't whining about your mistakes. It was you whining about me pointing them out when you do the same to other posters. It gets tiresome when people don't truly understand the concept of equality, IMHO. I love Sundays and the rest of the days.

[martin II]

Go away, martin. You're so annoying.

nope
i will stick around until you finish your research.

[tv]

I wasn't whining about your mistakes. It was you whining about me pointing them out when you do the same to other posters. It gets tiresome when people don't truly understand the concept of equality, IMHO. I love Sundays and the rest of the days.

Well, me being a white woman born with a silver spoon in my mouth, educated in the finest segregated schools, living in the south where every white is a racist and member of the klan and never daring to drink out of the same water fountain as blacks I just don't get what equality is all about. I need you to lecture me every single time I get on this message board so I'll get it. I'm glad you seem to have the tenacity to keep up your end of it. As for me, it's wearing me down fast.

[tv]

nope
i will stick around until you finish your research.Since you're #5 in the number of posts on this forum I never really hoped you'd go away.

[William Anthony]

All I did was say that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others and you just keep on about it. It may not even be true or may have been misrepresented. I'll tell you when I read the book. I've said before I'm sure the ladies of the jury were lovely ladies. What more can I say since I don't know them personally?

I thought you said a couple of days ago that you would not see the color of one's skin when you look at the case and then you say Black jurors segregated themselves from the others.:)

[martin II]

You have no problem pointing out my mistakes so please stop whining about it. It just gets so tiresome when you go on and on. I can't stop you from reminding me ad infinitum but you can't stop me from complaining about it. You're really not in your usual Sunday mood today, Mr. Anthony. The wrong side of the bed again?

By the way, the difference between GreenIce and me is that my mistakes are honest ones.

you just said you did not make a error about GIS post.is error the same as mistake for you?

[tv]

I thought you said a couple of days ago that you would not see the color of one's skin when you look at the case and then you say Black jurors segregated themselves from the others.:)

I don't care what color anyone in the case is but I can't ignore something I see in black and white print.

Psst -- I knew all along that there are different skin colors involved in the case -- I was just trying to get you to talk about something besides race. ;)

[martin II]

I thought you said a couple of days ago that you would not see the color of one's skin when you look at the case and then you say Black jurors segregated themselves from the others.:)

i thought it was something like everyone in the case was one or the same color.

[tv]

you just said you did not make a error about GIS post.is error the same as mistake for you?

Annoying, annoying, annoying. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Well, me being a white woman born with a silver spoon in my mouth, educated in the finest segregated schools, living in the south where every white is a racist and member of the klan and never daring to drink out of the same water fountain as blacks I just don't get what equality is all about. I need you to lecture me every single time I get on this message board so I'll get it. I'm glad you seem to have the tenacity to keep up your end of it. As for me, it's wearing me down fast.

Ah, I see that you do need to be reminded of some things in regard to equality as it was not so much a matter of birth as it was how one adapted to inequality. For instance, some Blacks hated other Blacks, and those that hated the other Blacks were treated more preferentially by the masters. It is not a matter of race that determines inequality or how one was born, although at one time being born Black meant you did not have rights equal to those of whites, but there was inequality within a race dependent upon how one accepted their fate.

[tv]

Ah, I see that you do need to be reminded of some things in regard to equality as it was not so much a matter of birth as it was how one adapted to inequality. For instance, some Blacks hated other Blacks, and those that hated the other Blacks were treated more preferentially by the masters. It is not a matter of race that determines inequality or how one was born, although at one time being born Black meant you did not have rights equal to those of whites, but there was inequality within a race dependent upon how one accepted their fate.

Was this part of today's lesson plan or is this off the cuff?

[William Anthony]

I don't care what color anyone in the case is but I can't ignore something I see in black and white print.

Psst -- I knew all along that there are different skin colors involved in the case -- I was just trying to get you to talk about something besides race. ;)

I knew you knew that. I could tell. I just didn't buy some of the thing Native Americans did.:)

[William Anthony]

Was this part of today's lesson plan or is this off the cuff?

This is off the cuff as I did not expect your remarks about being born White in the south with a silver spoon.

[tv]

I knew you knew that. I could tell. I just didn't buy some of the thing Native Americans did.:)

Now, now -- don't go injecting other races into the lessons on equality. You'll start getting me all confused.

[tv]

This is off the cuff as I did not expect your remarks about being born White in the south with a silver spoon.

Maybe I should have raised my hand first?

[William Anthony]

Now, now -- don't go injecting other races into the lessons on equality. You'll start getting me all confused.

Well, let me expound on that, because I was talking about your confession that you knew there were members of different races in the case and that you had an ulterior motive for saying you would not see differences in skin color when you looked at the case. I eluded to the fact that Native Americans bought into false promises and had the land taken away from them. I hope you see the connection. :)

[William Anthony]

Maybe I should have raised my hand first?

That would have taken me by surprise as you have just blurted out in the past.:)

[tv]

Well, let me expound on that, because I was talking about your confession that you knew there were members of different races in the case and that you had an ulterior motive for saying you would not see differences in skin color when you looked at the case. I eluded to the fact that Native Americans bought into false promises and had the land taken away from them. I hope you see the connection. :)

Even with your expounding I don't see the connection. If it's going to be on a test I'll try to remember it but if not I'm cutting it loose.

[tv]

That would have taken me by surprise as you have just blurted out in the past.:)

When I can get you good on a lovely Sunday morning it makes my day. :)

[William Anthony]

Ms. Tvdinner,

I really do not see the mean spirit in you posts that I see in some when it comes to race. I do think that you may not be aware, as I may not be, of how some of our posts come across. I think that we can discuss race, keeping in mind that others may not understand what we mean or others may take something in a way we did not mean.

[William Anthony]

Even with your expounding I don't see the connection. If it's going to be on a test I'll try to remember it but if not I'm cutting it loose.

False promises used to usurp power, understand?:)

[William Anthony]

When I can get you good on a lovely Sunday morning it makes my day. :)

I know it does but I thought it would have made your week.

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

I really do not see the mean spirit in you posts that I see in some when it comes to race. I do think that you may not be aware, as I may not be, of how some of our posts come across. I think that we can discuss race, keeping in mind that others may not understand what we mean or others may take something in a way we did not mean.

Mr. William Anthony,

I have no ill will against any race and don't feel I'm better than anyone on this planet. Initially, it was hard to take the accusations of racism against me but my skin has grown much thicker these last couple of years.

You hit on the reason I don't want to discuss race. Our discussions look ugly from the outside. I'm sure we're considered the most dysfunctional members of the CL board and I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that. The truth is that the discussion has gotten extremely nasty more than once. My cure for that is to avoid talking about race altogether. I don't think you agree that the case can be discussed without race being an integral part of it.

[tv]

I know it does but I thought it would have made your week.

Ok, what the heck, I'll admit it -- it makes my week.

[tv]

False promises used to usurp power, understand?:)

I don't see how my promise usurped anything. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Mr. William Anthony,

I have no ill will against any race and don't feel I'm better than anyone on this planet. Initially, it was hard to take the accusations of racism against me but my skin has grown much thicker these last couple of years.

You hit on the reason I don't want to discuss race. Our discussions look ugly from the outside. I'm sure we're considered the most dysfunctional members of the CL board and I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that. The truth is that the discussion has gotten extremely nasty more than once. My cure for that is to avoid talking about race altogether. I don't think you agree that the case can be discussed without race being an integral part of it.

Those, who remain on the outside, will never get in out of the storm. I don't blame anyone for thinking anything and I am not opposed to explaining to anyone why I feel the way I do or listening to their feelings. There is no way that race is not a part of this trial or the others. What part race played remains to be seen, IMHO. I think that, if others have questions about our posts, they should ask them and not assume that some of us, who post regularly have not been able to reach and understanding.

[tv]

Those, who remain on the outside, will never get in out of the storm. I don't blame anyone for thinking anything and I am not opposed to explaining to anyone why I feel the way I do or listening to their feelings. There is no way that race is not a part of this trial or the others. What part race played remains to be seen, IMHO. I think that, if others have questions about our posts, they should ask them and not assume that some of us, who post regularly have not been able to reach and understanding.

William, here's the thing. Why do we have to discuss race reaching back to slave days to discuss race in this case? The status of race relations in the 1700's and 1800's isn't even close to the same as race relations in 1994.

Speaking of other posters, most of them avoid the OJ Simpson forum like the plague.

[William Anthony]

William, here's the thing. Why do we have to discuss race reaching back to slave days to discuss race in this case? The status of race relations in the 1700's and 1800's isn't even close to the same as race relations in 1994.

Speaking of other posters, most of them avoid the OJ Simpson forum like the plague.

I cannot control what controls others' interest. I can make suggestions on how others', who wish to participate, ask for clarification before assuming the worst.

Feeling on race, have not arrived in America, today. Those feelings that existed in 1994 & 1995 come with a long and varied recognition and history, starting with slavery in America, the abolitionist movement, Jim crow laws, the KKK Act, segregation, the civil rights movement, the civil rights act, affirmative action, Plessy v. Furgeson, Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education, the Batson challenge, affirmative action and other influences that culminated in the feelings that existed in 1994 & 1995. To ignore these things and simply state that the jury was racially biased, leaves the wrong impression in the minds of some, IMHO. Why is slavery hard for you to talk about and why should Blacks be told to move on?

[William Anthony]

I don't see how my promise usurped anything. :shrug:

You tried but history taught me a lesson. :)

[tv]

You tried but history taught me a lesson. :)

Don't forget what I said about the oil and the wick. :)

[tv]

I cannot control what controls others' interest. I can make suggestions on how others', who wish to participate, ask for clarification before assuming the worst.

Feeling on race, have not arrived in America, today. Those feelings that existed in 1994 & 1995 come with a long and varied recognition and history, starting with slavery in America, the abolitionist movement, Jim crow laws, the KKK Act, segregation, the civil rights movement, the civil rights act, affirmative action, Plessy v. Furgeson, Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education, the Batson challenge, affirmative action and other influences that culminated in the feelings that existed in 1994 & 1995. To ignore these things and simply state that the jury was racially biased, leaves the wrong impression in the minds of some, IMHO. Why is slavery hard for you to talk about and why should Blacks be told to move on?

I think many people don't participate in this forum because they never know when they're going to get blindsided with accusations of racism not to mention the ridiculous theories that some posters dream up out of nowhere.

I don't have a problem talking about slavery but this isn't the place for it. I'm here to discuss the case. If I want to go back to the dawn of time in talking about slavery I'd find another venue. Here's something that should spark your indignation at me for mentioning it -- the racist klan has approximately 5,000 members in the US and the racist Rev. Wright's church has over 8,000 members. Interesting.

[GreenIce]

That says consolidate behind their own, not take care of their own. I wondered how long it would take you to pick that one sentence out and ignore the context of the sentence and the content of the link.

William,

G's refuse to acknowledge when the jurors said this and why they said this. If you are a fair minded person, it had nothing to do with race nor were they claiming OJ Simpson as "one of their own".

However, TV and a couple other G's have claim MF as one of their own and have given him much more protection then anybody. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Don't forget what I said about the oil and the wick. :)

That wick was too oily for me to buy. :)

[William Anthony]

I think many people don't participate in this forum because they never know when they're going to get blindsided with accusations of racism not to mention the ridiculous theories that some posters dream up out of nowhere.

I don't have a problem talking about slavery but this isn't the place for it. I'm here to discuss the case. If I want to go back to the dawn of time in talking about slavery I'd find another venue. Here's something that should spark your indignation at me for mentioning it -- the racist klan has approximately 5,000 members in the US and the racist Rev. Wright's church has over 8,000 members. Interesting.

Our feelings on race and our prejudices are hard for us to honestly view, IMHO. What you call ridiculous, as with another poster's favorite word, does not make it ridiculous because you do not see or understand it. It is this type of wording which makes for ill feelings and shows a lack of respect, IMHO. I am aware of what may have caused you to make that statement but that in no way means that it won't cause ill feelings or show disrespect.

You say you don't have a problem discussing slavery but this isn't the place for it and, yet, you discuss the Klan and Rev. Wright's church membership. I think that they all have a place here if it can help us to understand what America felt in 1994 & 1995. I haven't heard of members of Wright's church lynching, killing or bombing the churches of Whites, while there are parishioners inside, have you?

[William Anthony]

William,

G's refuse to acknowledge when the jurors said this and why they said this. If you are a fair minded person, it had nothing to do with race nor were they claiming OJ Simpson as "one of their own".

However, TV and a couple other G's have claim MF as one of their own and have given him much more protection then anybody. IMO.

I don't automatically see the juror's statement as a racially biased one, although there can be no doubt about MF's.

[tv]

I don't automatically see the juror's statement as a racially biased one, although there can be no doubt about MF's.

I don't know Mark Fuhrman personally and have only seen him during the trial and occasionally reporting on crimes on tv. In what way am I able to protect him? I don't have the power to protect him from whatever it is that the clairvoyant thinks I'm protecting him from. Does he need protection from something? Am I missing something?

[tv]

That wick was too oily for me to buy. :)
You seem to have a lot of problems with oil lately.

[GreenIce]

Those, who remain on the outside, will never get in out of the storm. I don't blame anyone for thinking anything and I am not opposed to explaining to anyone why I feel the way I do or listening to their feelings. There is no way that race is not a part of this trial or the others. What part race played remains to be seen, IMHO. I think that, if others have questions about our posts, they should ask them and not assume that some of us, who post regularly have not been able to reach and understanding.

William,

May I give you some advice regarding TV? IMO, TV is a very kind person except to me, the "nut" but that is okay, I get that. However, what she doesn't understand about racism is that you and Martin are not trying to make her feel guilty for the past.

She made a post that she did not allow her children or the "n-word" to be used her home. I understand that completely, I was raised the same way and I have raised my son the same way.

There are probably several reasons TV never allowed this word to be used in her home and I would think, it is because she knew it was slur and all slurs, against any race or ethnic group are painful to those who are on the receiving end of it.

If TV felt disgust at that word and banned it from her lexicon and her children's lexicon, then why didn't she feel disgust when she heard it on the tapes or when other witnesses testified and MF and the n-word Should it have mattered, even if she truly believes it was just a screenplay?

Instead of saying that while she believed that MF was just using it for a screen play, she should have denounced the use of that word because using it in screen play is not anymore excuseable then using it when he talked to the two women--Bell and Singer.

When she has run out gas on the screen play excuse and that Singer and Bell are lying about it or he was just trying to make an impression on these women, she uses the fact that the N-word was used in JC's office.

The problem is TV only feels disgust in certain instances. She should feel disgust regardless of the color of the person who is saying it. She should feel disgust that a man would use this word to try to impress a woman, she should feel disgust every time it came out of MF's mouth on the tapes.

She also should have felt disgust for the comments about Mexicans and every other minority MF raged against.

She makes a valid point about a comment you or Martin made about Petrocelli and the word greasy. As I told you, I have heard the same term used but it was in relation to the Mafia. You or Martin were polite when you said you had no idea that some considered it a racial slur.

However, why didn't she take offense or stand up for you and Martin when others have made idiotic statements regarding this word? Why does she feel the pain of slurs against an Italin man, but not a black man?

MF knows that word would cause shame and hurt and that was his main goal.
He accomplished it and he did it in such a way that I feel very, very good people, like some of your G friends, feel the need to sugarcoat and protect MF's racism.

TV refuses to acknowledge the pain that word causes and just refuses to understand that while the word may cause alot of pain, it doesn't matter if MF said that the only good African American is a dead African American and the only thing that comes out of an African American's mouth is lie. It is not the slur, it is the words surrounding it. IMO.

Again, all IMO.

[tv]

Our feelings on race and our prejudices are hard for us to honestly view, IMHO. What you call ridiculous, as with another poster's favorite word, does not make it ridiculous because you do not see or understand it. It is this type of wording which makes for ill feelings and shows a lack of respect, IMHO. I am aware of what may have caused you to make that statement but that in no way means that it won't cause ill feelings or show disrespect.

You say you don't have a problem discussing slavery but this isn't the place for it and, yet, you discuss the Klan and Rev. Wright's church membership. I think that they all have a place here if it can help us to understand what America felt in 1994 & 1995. I haven't heard of members of Wright's church lynching, killing or bombing the churches of Whites, while there are parishioners inside, have you?

No, I haven't either but the hatred he spewed was obvious. Who knows what that kind of rhetoric will incite someone to do? If you're okay with it I'm okay with it. :shrug:

Sorry, I think when posters make up things to fit their own scenarios it's ridiculous and takes away from the discussion. I'm not talking about differences in interpretation of the evidence. Whether you admit it or not you know what I'm talking about.

[GreenIce]

I don't automatically see the juror's statement as a racially biased one, although there can be no doubt about MF's.

William,

There is no possible way that anyone could take that statement as even remotely based on race--unless that is what they want to see in it. IMO, and you have to want it pretty bad to see it that way.

[William Anthony]

I don't know Mark Fuhrman personally and have only seen him during the trial and occasionally reporting on crimes on tv. In what way am I able to protect him? I don't have the power to protect him from whatever it is that the clairvoyant thinks I'm protecting him from. Does he need protection from something? Am I missing something?

Yes, I think you are missing something anyone that minimizes MF's statements, as opposed to declaring him a racist as the prosecution did is protecting him, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

You seem to have a lot of problems with oil lately.

With the price of petro being exaggerated, yes, I have.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

May I give you some advice regarding TV? IMO, TV is a very kind person except to me, the "nut" but that is okay, I get that. However, what she doesn't understand about racism is that you and Martin are not trying to make her feel guilty for the past.

She made a post that she did not allow her children or the "n-word" to be used her home. I understand that completely, I was raised the same way and I have raised my son the same way.

There are probably several reasons TV never allowed this word to be used in her home and I would think, it is because she knew it was slur and all slurs, against any race or ethnic group are painful to those who are on the receiving end of it.

If TV felt disgust at that word and banned it from her lexicon and her children's lexicon, then why didn't she feel disgust when she heard it on the tapes or when other witnesses testified and MF and the n-word Should it have mattered, even if she truly believes it was just a screenplay?

Instead of saying that while she believed that MF was just using it for a screen play, she should have denounced the use of that word because using it in screen play is not anymore excuseable then using it when he talked to the two women--Bell and Singer.

When she has run out gas on the screen play excuse and that Singer and Bell are lying about it or he was just trying to make an impression on these women, she uses the fact that the N-word was used in JC's office.

The problem is TV only feels disgust in certain instances. She should feel disgust regardless of the color of the person who is saying it. She should feel disgust that a man would use this word to try to impress a woman, she should feel disgust every time it came out of MF's mouth on the tapes.

She also should have felt disgust for the comments about Mexicans and every other minority MF raged against.

She makes a valid point about a comment you or Martin made about Petrocelli and the word greasy. As I told you, I have heard the same term used but it was in relation to the Mafia. You or Martin were polite when you said you had no idea that some considered it a racial slur.

However, why didn't she take offense or stand up for you and Martin when others have made idiotic statements regarding this word? Why does she feel the pain of slurs against an Italin man, but not a black man?

MF knows that word would cause shame and hurt and that was his main goal.
He accomplished it and he did it in such a way that I feel very, very good people, like some of your G friends, feel the need to sugarcoat and protect MF's racism.

Again, all IMO.

I truly never heard the word used in connection with Italians or any other ethnic racial group. I did hear the term greaser and that was in the later years. It is unrealistic, IMHO, to not know that boy has negative connotations to a Black man or to deny the stereotypes about Blacks and chicken. However, as you can see I have not used the word and have not defended anyone else that used it, since being informed it could be a racial slur. I never used the word grease ball or greaser.

[tv]

Yes, I think you are missing something anyone that minimizes MF's statements, as opposed to declaring him a racist as the prosecution did is protecting him, IMHO.

William, why does your tone change when GreenIce comes to the board? You and I had reached some common ground and now we're back on the slippery slope. I've told you in the past that I don't condone Mark Fuhrmans's words on the tapes and it certainly isn't the kind of screenplay or movie I would be interested in viewing. Words alone don't prove anything. GreenIce has slammed me over and over but that doesn't mean she would plant evidence against me. I don't think it's fair that I'm forced to restate my position on Mark Fuhrman over and over again. I don't have the power to protect him against anything or anyone. These accusations are getting more bizarre by the day.

[William Anthony]

No, I haven't either but the hatred he spewed was obvious. Who knows what that kind of rhetoric will incite someone to do? If you're okay with it I'm okay with it. :shrug:

Sorry, I think when posters make up things to fit their own scenarios it's ridiculous and takes away from the discussion. I'm not talking about differences in interpretation of the evidence. Whether you admit it or not you know what I'm talking about.

I have only heard sound bites of his sermons. However, Reverend Wright may have finished his services with a prayer, telling his members of God's will to love and forgive. I think that was vastly different from what the message the KKK leaders put out as they distorted God's law, according to my understanding, it was that God intended them to rule.

[tv]

I truly never heard the word used in connection with Italians or any other ethnic racial group. I did hear the term greaser and that was in the later years. It is unrealistic, IMHO, to not know that boy has negative connotations to a Black man or to deny the stereotypes about Blacks and chicken. However, as you can see I have not used the word and have not defended anyone else that used it, since being informed it could be a racial slur. I never used the word grease ball or greaser.

Once again, you've quoted one of GreenIce's diatribes against me. Honestly, I might print them out and make a book out of them...they might appeal to someone on the outer fringes of society.

I have an idea -- the next time you post a racial slur I'll just let it stand. GreenIce has admitted that she knew it was a slur yet she let it go unchallenged. Why does she feel the pain of the black man but not the Italian? :shrug:

[GreenIce]

I truly never heard the word used in connection with Italians or any other ethnic racial group. I did hear the term greaser and that was in the later years. It is unrealistic, IMHO, to not know that boy has negative connotations to a Black man or to deny the stereotypes about Blacks and chicken. However, as you can see I have not used the word and have not defended anyone else that used it, since being informed it could be a racial slur. I never used the word grease ball or greaser.

William,

Exactly, you stopped using the word because you know the pain a slur can cause. Apparently, TV only feels it when a slur is used against a white person. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William, why does your tone change when GreenIce comes to the board? You and I had reached some common ground and now we're back on the slippery slope. I've told you in the past that I don't condone Mark Fuhrmans's words on the tapes and it certainly isn't the kind of screenplay or movie I would be interested in viewing. Words alone don't prove anything. GreenIce has slammed me over and over but that doesn't mean she would plant evidence against me. I don't think it's fair that I'm forced to restate my position on Mark Fuhrman over and over again. I don't have the power to protect him against anything or anyone. These accusations are getting more bizarre by the day.

My tone hasn't changed and neither has my feelings toward MF's statements. In the beginning there was God and the Word was with God and God said let there be light. Words are powerful and have the ability to encourage or destroy. I thought you were of the opinion that MF's lies were irrelevant.

[tv]

I have only heard sound bites of his sermons. However, Reverend Wright may have finished his services with a prayer, telling his members of God's will to love and forgive. I think that was vastly different from what the message the KKK leaders put out as they distorted God's law, according to my understanding, it was that God intended them to rule.

I'm not defending the klan. I think they're despicable human beings with an evil agenda. That doesn't absolve Rev. Wright of his hate speech.

[William Anthony]

Once again, you've quoted one of GreenIce's diatribes against me. Honestly, I might print them out and make a book out of them...they might appeal to someone on the outer fringes of society.

I have an idea -- the next time you post a racial slur I'll just let it stand. GreenIce has admitted that she knew it was a slur yet she let it go unchallenged. Why does she feel the pain of the black man but not the Italian? :shrug:

Was the Italian man always treated as a human?:shrug:

[tv]

My tone hasn't changed and neither has my feelings toward MF's statements. In the beginning there was God and the Word was with God and God said let there be light. Words are powerful and have the ability to encourage or destroy. I thought you were of the opinion that MF's lies were irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the case. Big difference. Your tone has changed so I'm going to leave you to a lovely afternoon with GreenIce and martin. I hope my ears don't start burning while I'm away. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm not defending the klan. I think they're despicable human beings with an evil agenda. That doesn't absolve Rev. Wright of his hate speech.

I wasn't absolving either. You spoke on the number of members of each and I asked about the deeds of the members of each.

[tv]

Was the Italian man always treated as a human?:shrug:

I don't know. I'm not real knowledgable about Italian history but I know the Romans kept slaves. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Irrelevant to the case. Big difference. Your tone has changed so I'm going to leave you to a lovely afternoon with GreenIce and martin. I hope my ears don't start burning while I'm away. :)

I am of the opinion that his words are not irrelevant as they show evidence of motive to plant evidence.

[tv]

I am of the opinion that his words are not irrelevant as they show evidence of motive to plant evidence.

Then OJ Simpson's verbal threats to Nicole that he would kill her should show motive for him to be her killer.

[William Anthony]

I don't know. I'm not real knowledgable about Italian history but I know the Romans kept slaves. :shrug:

I have been told that Blacks were the only race to endure chattel slavery.

[William Anthony]

Then OJ Simpson's verbal threats to Nicole that he would kill her should show motive for him to be her killer.

The prosecution was allowed wide latitude to show evidence of motive as one poster provided the link when I questioned the admissibility of some of the evidence.

[fgump2]

There was no verdict of innocence. I call him the magnificent one after observing his skill in the courtroom and his command of that courtroom. I did not observe the oily one but I have looked the transcripts and I think Petro deserves the names, as some believe in calling cockroach and flee.

I think Johnnie Cochran’s moral behavior left a lot to be desired, and I feel critical of people who call Cochran the magnificent one, and then attack Daniel Petrocelli for oily or substandard ethics.
I realize that the things that Cochran and Petrocelli have been criticized for are not the same, but the two situations are both related to morality and fair play. I am not an expert on legal ethics.
Johnnie Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times in his opening speech for the 1995 criminal trial. Most of these witnesses that he promised never appeared in the trial, and some had so many credibility problems that it is hard to believe that he planned to have these appear in the trial. Some of Cochran’s defenders claim that the prosecution had discovery law violations also, but I don’t think they had as many, and I don’t think there were any instances in which the witnesses were as worthless as Mary Anne Gerchas, one of Cochran’s phantom witnesses who were never sworn in. If Cochran didn’t know that M.A. Gerchas had no integrity, then Cochran was incompetent.
I am also bothered by the fact that Cochran repeatedly eye balled the Goldmans during the trial including when the innocent verdict was read. Greenice defended this by saying that since Cochran had demolished all of the prosecutions case and that this should have caused the Goldmans to change their minds.
There are several reasons why I disagree with this. For one thing in most cases the defense didn’t demolish the prosecution’s evidence, they tried to introduce reasonable doubt. This is a valid way to get a verdict of not guilty, but hardly guaranteed to change the minds of the Goldmans and Browns, or the press.
The Goldmans and Browns believed Mr. Simpson was guilty in part because of reasons that the prosecution either could not enter or chose not to enter as evidence. For example the fact that Nicole predicted her own death. Another reason was the way that Mr. Simpson acted during the trial; Mr. Simpson showed anger at the Goldmans but not at the detectives.
Another reason was the way Mr. Simpson acted during the bronco chase, pointing a gun at his own head, a strange way for an innocent man to act.
Lastly the Goldmans and Browns believe that Mr. Simpson was guilty because most of the press said this, and the police as well. I realize that neither the police nor the press is infallible, but the fact is that it should have been easier to change the minds of the press than to change the minds of the Goldmans or Browns. The Goldmans and Browns were overcome with both grief and anger at the time. This would certainly reduce their ability to think flexibly. If anyone doesn’t understand why the Goldmans or Browns would be overcome with grief and anger, or why this should reduce their ability to think flexibly, then I could no more explain this than I could explain what the color red looks like to a person who has been completely blind since birth.
It should be obvious to anyone that if Cochran or anyone else had evidence that Simpson was innocent; it would have made more sense to try to change the minds of the press, not the Goldmans. For one thing, the press could have influenced others. Does anyone think that the Goldman’s could influence public opinion anywhere near as much as the press could? Did Cochran expect Fred Goldman to go on TV and give an eloquent speech about why he thought that Mr. Simpson was innocent?
The fact that Cochran had strong doubts about Simpson’s innocence makes Cochran’s behavior toward the Goldmans harder to justify in a moral sense. I think that Cochran was picking on the Goldmans because he either enjoyed being mean, or because he thought it would be an advantage to provoke an angry response out of them.

[GreenIce]

I have been told that Blacks were the only race to endure chattel slavery.

William,

IMO, if any person who was sent to God before their time because of hate crimes, was given the chance to come back to earth and speak to the world about hate, this person would not say that one race or ethnic group had it worse then the other because the bottom line, they were all killed because of hate. Is it worse to hate a black person or is it worse to hate a jew?

Until we as nation treat racism and hate crimes equally, regardless of the color of the skin or the ethnic backround, we will go no where, IMO.

I did not vote for President Obama. I am a die hard republican and I make no apologizes for that. However, I have already notice that the President and his wife are not being treated equally on very basic issues.

I was watching TV when an add came on about the Ball celebrating President Obama's being sworn in. The announcer said, "Watch Barrack and Michele take their first dance.....". I went ballistic. Never, ever did I ever heard any other President and his wife be referred to by their first names. He is the President of the United States of America, because he is black does not mean they can call him and his wife by their first names. I know that may sound odd to you but it is true. I have never heard another President and First Lady be referred to by just using their first names.

If McCain won the election, do you think they would have said, 'Watch John and Cindy have their first dance...." No way, it would have been President elect McCain and his First Lady.

Maybe I am to odd fashion but I don't think any President or First Lady should be addressed by their first names. IMO.

[fgump2]

One reason that causes many people to think Mr. Simpson is guilty is his lack of anger against the police. He has shown a lot of anger against the Goldmans, and almost none against the police. Some of Simpson's defenders say that this is because Mr. Simpson is a coward, and afraid to speak out against the police.

This makes a little sense, but not much. If so, why do so many people waste time defending a coward? Also there are certainly countries in the Caribbean where English is the maine langauge and the people of African descent control the police top to bottom; why not go there and speak his mind? Someof these places even has golf courses. There are probably cities in the US where blacks are in the majority of the police at all levels including the top. It is entirely possible that some have golf courses also.

The LAPD chief of police was a black American who said he thought Mr. Simpson was guilty and there was no frameup or blue wall of silence involved in that case. Was he a self hating black man, or perhaps not as smart as Martin, WA, or Greenice? I think he is/was a proud black man who doesn't need me or Greenice or anyone else to explain or defend his views.

There were three times seqments in which Mr. Simpson showed an unusual lack of anger at the police: the Bronco chase, during the criminal trial (showing anger against the Goldmans, but not against the police), and after the criminal trial.

The fear factor is an unconvincing explanation for the third time period, including now, but seems to fail for the first two. It doesn't seem reasonable that at the time Mr. Simpson wrote the farewell note he was afraid of criticizing the police, or when he was pointing the gun at his own head. I mean if he was seriously considering suicide, would he really have been afraid of what the police could do? Regardless of how bad the police were, they couldn't get revenge against a dead man.

[GreenIce]

I think Johnnie Cochran’s moral behavior left a lot to be desired, and I feel critical of people who call Cochran the magnificent one, and then attack Daniel Petrocelli for oily or substandard ethics.
I realize that the things that Cochran and Petrocelli have been criticized for are not the same, but the two situations are both related to morality and fair play. I am not an expert on legal ethics.
Johnnie Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times in his opening speech for the 1995 criminal trial. Most of these witnesses that he promised never appeared in the trial, and some had so many credibility problems that it is hard to believe that he planned to have these appear in the trial. Some of Cochran’s defenders claim that the prosecution had discovery law violations also, but I don’t think they had as many, and I don’t think there were any instances in which the witnesses were as worthless as Mary Anne Gerchas, one of Cochran’s phantom witnesses who were never sworn in. If Cochran didn’t know that M.A. Gerchas had no integrity, then Cochran was incompetent.
I am also bothered by the fact that Cochran repeatedly eye balled the Goldmans during the trial including when the innocent verdict was read. Greenice defended this by saying that since Cochran had demolished all of the prosecutions case and that this should have caused the Goldmans to change their minds.
There are several reasons why I disagree with this. For one thing in most cases the defense didn’t demolish the prosecution’s evidence, they tried to introduce reasonable doubt. This is a valid way to get a verdict of not guilty, but hardly guaranteed to change the minds of the Goldmans and Browns, or the press.
The Goldmans and Browns believed Mr. Simpson was guilty in part because of reasons that the prosecution either could not enter or chose not to enter as evidence. For example the fact that Nicole predicted her own death. Another reason was the way that Mr. Simpson acted during the trial; Mr. Simpson showed anger at the Goldmans but not at the detectives.
Another reason was the way Mr. Simpson acted during the bronco chase, pointing a gun at his own head, a strange way for an innocent man to act.
Lastly the Goldmans and Browns believe that Mr. Simpson was guilty because most of the press said this, and the police as well. I realize that neither the police nor the press is infallible, but the fact is that it should have been easier to change the minds of the press than to change the minds of the Goldmans or Browns. The Goldmans and Browns were overcome with both grief and anger at the time. This would certainly reduce their ability to think flexibly. If anyone doesn’t understand why the Goldmans or Browns would be overcome with grief and anger, or why this should reduce their ability to think flexibly, then I could no more explain this than I could explain what the color red looks like to a person who has been completely blind since birth.
It should be obvious to anyone that if Cochran or anyone else had evidence that Simpson was innocent; it would have made more sense to try to change the minds of the press, not the Goldmans. For one thing, the press could have influenced others. Does anyone think that the Goldman’s could influence public opinion anywhere near as much as the press could? Did Cochran expect Fred Goldman to go on TV and give an eloquent speech about why he thought that Mr. Simpson was innocent?
The fact that Cochran had strong doubts about Simpson’s innocence makes Cochran’s behavior toward the Goldmans harder to justify in a moral sense. I think that Cochran was picking on the Goldmans because he either enjoyed being mean, or because he thought it would be an advantage to provoke an angry response out of them.

fgump2,

The LAPD lied to get a search warrant and because the judges are so weak, they allowed it because they didn't want to tank their careers. Any dreams of holding a judgeship would have been shattered and people would have demanded a recall to kick them out of office.

You forget, the DA's have a responsibilty to the residents or the people of California. Mr. Simpson was a resident and a "people" in the state of California. The DA's are supposed to persue the evidence to convict the person who is did the deeds. I the DA's main goal is to seek the truth and convict the person they accused, then they should not have one discovery issue.

You feel Cochran's discovery violations were worse then the DA's, why? If you feel JC discovery issues were a blantent attempt to cover up his clients crimes, then you have to say the DA's were doing the exact same things, using discovery issues to cover up their side's crimes. Can't have it both ways.

However, both sides promised witnesses that they did not deliver. Read VA and Lange's book, they said that even cops had valuable information for the state but didn't want to get involved in the trial. They were pulling away from it, can you explain to me how a cop can say that he doesn't want to get involved in a trial?

[fgump2]

I have been told that Blacks were the only race to endure chattel slavery.

You should read about the history of slavery some time.

I believe that most of the time slaves were of the same race as the slave owners. In the goldern age of ancient Greece, there were about as many slaves as fee citizens in most of the cities. These were mostly white, caucasion, although it was an easier form of slavery than in the US. Most of these slaves in ancient Rome or Greece could buy or work their way to freedom a lot easier and more often than in the US.

I believe the word slave comes from slavic, southeastern Europe.

A lot of people think that slavery came into being shortly after 1492. Actually slavery existed in Europe, Africa, and North America long before 1492. Probably asia and south america as well.

In the late 1700's and early1800s there were american sailors kidnapped from the high seas and ensalved in north Africa, although I don't think any of them had dark skinned slave masters. The US had some military action against Lebanon and perhaps Morroco then. This is the origen of the Marine battle hym phrase 'the shores of Tripoli'.

As late as about the 1600's some Moslem pirates had successful slave raids as far north as England, scandinavia, and Iceland. OF course they took things other than slaves.

There used to be a short prayer in the Episcopalian prayer book which mentioned Muslim pirates. It was something like 'good lord, please save us from the Muslilm pirates'. I don't know if this prayer is still in the Episcopal payer book in either England or the US.

[martin II]

I have only heard sound bites of his sermons. However, Reverend Wright may have finished his services with a prayer, telling his members of God's will to love and forgive. I think that was vastly different from what the message the KKK leaders put out as they distorted God's law, according to my understanding, it was that God intended them to rule.

i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

[GreenIce]

One reason that causes many people to think Mr. Simpson is guilty is his lack of anger against the police. He has shown a lot of anger against the Goldmans, and almost none against the police. Some of Simpson's defenders say that this is because Mr. Simpson is a coward, and afraid to speak out against the police.

This makes a little sense, but not much. If so, why do so many people waste time defending a coward? Also there are certainly countries in the Caribbean where English is the maine langauge and the people of African descent control the police top to bottom; why not go there and speak his mind? Someof these places even has golf courses. There are probably cities in the US where blacks are in the majority of the police at all levels including the top. It is entirely possible that some have golf courses also.

The LAPD chief of police was a black American who said he thought Mr. Simpson was guilty and there was no frameup or blue wall of silence involved in that case. Was he a self hating black man, or perhaps not as smart as Martin, WA, or Greenice? I think he is/was a proud black man who doesn't need me or Greenice or anyone else to explain or defend his views.

There were three times seqments in which Mr. Simpson showed an unusual lack of anger at the police: the Bronco chase, during the criminal trial (showing anger against the Goldmans, but not against the police), and after the criminal trial.

The fear factor is an unconvincing explanation for the third time period, including now, but seems to fail for the first two. It doesn't seem reasonable that at the time Mr. Simpson wrote the farewell note he was afraid of criticizing the police, or when he was pointing the gun at his own head. I mean if he was seriously considering suicide, would he really have been afraid of what the police could do? Regardless of how bad the police were, they couldn't get revenge against a dead man.

fgump2,

Why would Simpson be angry at the police during the Bronco chase? What reason did he have to believe that the police were framing him? All he knew about the evidence was what he was told and what he heard on the news. Why would he suspect the police of doing it?

William and Martin have spoken about the police and their issues with minorities, however, both William and Martin have strongly stated that not all cops are bad and they are very important to our justice system and that we need them.

It did not take a massive amount of people to frame Simpson. It only took one or two. So he should hate all cops because of one or two? Didn't he say that he was very angry at all of the police but then he realized that he was only angry at a few of them and that he still supported the LAPD?

Have you ever heard a cop, regardless of rank say there is "A Blue Wall of Silence"? Don't most of them give a stupid blank look like they don't understand the question they are being asked?

And why is Simpson angry the Goldmans? Why does he feel that the Goldmans' are not being truthful with their motives?

Mr. Simpson is not a coward, however, any police officer, regardless of rank who continues to deny the "Blue Wall of Silence" and protect cops they know are corrupt are the cowards, not Mr. Simpson.

I did believe that Simpson was going to kill himself and I believe that it would have been done out guilt on how he treated Nicole and that when he was told she was in danger, he didn't take it seriously. However, if he was real coward, he would have killed himself and it wouldn't have mattered that he would leave behind two young children who just lost their mother. The pleas from his family, especially his mother would have been ignored. He would not have cared that his mother was so upset that she had to be admitted to the hospital. People who commit sucide don't care about anyone but themselves. Others pain is not a consideration. Clearly, at least a few people were able to get this point across to Simpson. I think Tom Lange did an excellent job in taking him. I think it was pretty clear that Simpson felt he was being framed but understood that the cops were doing their job. He never threatened them with the gun, in fact he said he was not carrying the gun because of them.

Perhaps you need to explain to me why you think Simpson should have suspected the police during the Bronco Chase?

[GreenIce]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

TV Dinner,

This is a complete and total lie. There can only be two reason for you to be lying about this, either you can't read or you can read but you don't comprehend or understand what some words mean.

Or you are trying to start a war on the boards.

Which is it?

Another complete lie you posted was about a racial slur that you accussed William of using and I let it stand. I supported what you had said and I explained where I heard the term in regards to Italins.

Knowing William as I do, I know he did not know that it was considered a racial slur. I also know Wiliam would not use it again because he knows the pain slurs caused. There was no need to attack Wiliam when I pointed this out to him.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, if any person who was sent to God before their time because of hate crimes, was given the chance to come back to earth and speak to the world about hate, this person would not say that one race or ethnic group had it worse then the other because the bottom line, they were all killed because of hate. Is it worse to hate a black person or is it worse to hate a jew?

Until we as nation treat racism and hate crimes equally, regardless of the color of the skin or the ethnic backround, we will go no where, IMO.

I did not vote for President Obama. I am a die hard republican and I make no apologizes for that. However, I have already notice that the President and his wife are not being treated equally on very basic issues.

I was watching TV when an add came on about the Ball celebrating President Obama's being sworn in. The announcer said, "Watch Barrack and Michele take their first dance.....". I went ballistic. Never, ever did I ever heard any other President and his wife be referred to by their first names. He is the President of the United States of America, because he is black does not mean they can call him and his wife by their first names. I know that may sound odd to you but it is true. I have never heard another President and First Lady be referred to by just using their first names.

If McCain won the election, do you think they would have said, 'Watch John and Cindy have their first dance...." No way, it would have been President elect McCain and his First Lady.

Maybe I am to odd fashion but I don't think any President or First Lady should be addressed by their first names. IMO.

I believe that hatred of anyone is a lost emotion. However, I was not speaking of hate crimes but how Blacks were treated during slavery and showing a comparison of the KKK to Reverend Wright.

Yes, I noticed the disrespect shown our President and had to correct a poster, who believed the term President Elect was created on SNL, who claimed to have been showing respect by saying Mr. Obama. :)

[martin II]

I think Johnnie Cochran’s moral behavior left a lot to be desired, and I feel critical of people who call Cochran the magnificent one, and then attack Daniel Petrocelli for oily or substandard ethics.
I realize that the things that Cochran and Petrocelli have been criticized for are not the same, but the two situations are both related to morality and fair play. I am not an expert on legal ethics.
Johnnie Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times in his opening speech for the 1995 criminal trial. Most of these witnesses that he promised never appeared in the trial, and some had so many credibility problems that it is hard to believe that he planned to have these appear in the trial. Some of Cochran’s defenders claim that the prosecution had discovery law violations also, but I don’t think they had as many, and I don’t think there were any instances in which the witnesses were as worthless as Mary Anne Gerchas, one of Cochran’s phantom witnesses who were never sworn in. If Cochran didn’t know that M.A. Gerchas had no integrity, then Cochran was incompetent.
I am also bothered by the fact that Cochran repeatedly eye balled the Goldmans during the trial including when the innocent verdict was read. Greenice defended this by saying that since Cochran had demolished all of the prosecutions case and that this should have caused the Goldmans to change their minds.
There are several reasons why I disagree with this. For one thing in most cases the defense didn’t demolish the prosecution’s evidence, they tried to introduce reasonable doubt. This is a valid way to get a verdict of not guilty, but hardly guaranteed to change the minds of the Goldmans and Browns, or the press.
The Goldmans and Browns believed Mr. Simpson was guilty in part because of reasons that the prosecution either could not enter or chose not to enter as evidence. For example the fact that Nicole predicted her own death. Another reason was the way that Mr. Simpson acted during the trial; Mr. Simpson showed anger at the Goldmans but not at the detectives.
Another reason was the way Mr. Simpson acted during the bronco chase, pointing a gun at his own head, a strange way for an innocent man to act.
Lastly the Goldmans and Browns believe that Mr. Simpson was guilty because most of the press said this, and the police as well. I realize that neither the police nor the press is infallible, but the fact is that it should have been easier to change the minds of the press than to change the minds of the Goldmans or Browns. The Goldmans and Browns were overcome with both grief and anger at the time. This would certainly reduce their ability to think flexibly. If anyone doesn’t understand why the Goldmans or Browns would be overcome with grief and anger, or why this should reduce their ability to think flexibly, then I could no more explain this than I could explain what the color red looks like to a person who has been completely blind since birth.
It should be obvious to anyone that if Cochran or anyone else had evidence that Simpson was innocent; it would have made more sense to try to change the minds of the press, not the Goldmans. For one thing, the press could have influenced others. Does anyone think that the Goldman’s could influence public opinion anywhere near as much as the press could? Did Cochran expect Fred Goldman to go on TV and give an eloquent speech about why he thought that Mr. Simpson was innocent?
The fact that Cochran had strong doubts about Simpson’s innocence makes Cochran’s behavior toward the Goldmans harder to justify in a moral sense. I think that Cochran was picking on the Goldmans because he either enjoyed being mean, or because he thought it would be an advantage to provoke an angry response out of them.

fgump2

i think your claims about Cochran the magnificant one are just false. if you were to use imo after your post then we would know that you are not trying to post facts. imo

[William Anthony]

You should read about the history of slavery some time.

I believe that most of the time slaves were of the same race as the slave owners. In the goldern age of ancient Greece, there were about as many slaves as fee citizens in most of the cities. These were mostly white, caucasion, although it was an easier form of slavery than in the US. Most of these slaves in ancient Rome or Greece could buy or work their way to freedom a lot easier and more often than in the US.

I believe the word slave comes from slavic, southeastern Europe.

A lot of people think that slavery came into being shortly after 1492. Actually slavery existed in Europe, Africa, and North America long before 1492. Probably asia and south america as well.

In the late 1700's and early1800s there were american sailors kidnapped from the high seas and ensalved in north Africa, although I don't think any of them had dark skinned slave masters. The US had some military action against Lebanon and perhaps Morroco then. This is the origen of the Marine battle hym phrase 'the shores of Tripoli'.

As late as about the 1600's some Moslem pirates had successful slave raids as far north as England, scandinavia, and Iceland. OF course they took things other than slaves.

There used to be a short prayer in the Episcopalian prayer book which mentioned Muslim pirates. It was something like 'good lord, please save us from the Muslilm pirates'. I don't know if this prayer is still in the Episcopal payer book in either England or the US.

I was speaking of the American form of slavery, chattel slavery, and the promise of equality America made to its citizens.

[William Anthony]

One reason that causes many people to think Mr. Simpson is guilty is his lack of anger against the police. He has shown a lot of anger against the Goldmans, and almost none against the police. Some of Simpson's defenders say that this is because Mr. Simpson is a coward, and afraid to speak out against the police. don't think Simpson is a coward or taking the easy way out, so much as he was wise by not speaking out against the police.

This makes a little sense, but not much. If so, why do so many people waste time defending a coward? Also there are certainly countries in the Caribbean where English is the maine langauge and the people of African descent control the police top to bottom; why not go there and speak his mind? Someof these places even has golf courses. There are probably cities in the US where blacks are in the majority of the police at all levels including the top. It is entirely possible that some have golf courses also. So, in America a person has to go to cities where members of his race may be in control of LE to have freedom of speech. What is with you and the golf course thing-jealousy?

The LAPD chief of police was a black American who said he thought Mr. Simpson was guilty and there was no frameup or blue wall of silence involved in that case. Was he a self hating black man, or perhaps not as smart as Martin, WA, or Greenice? I think he is/was a proud black man who doesn't need me or Greenice or anyone else to explain or defend his views. The Police chief is entitled to his views. IF you think that he does not need you to defend him why did you bring him up and then try to defend him?

There were three times seqments in which Mr. Simpson showed an unusual lack of anger at the police: the Bronco chase, during the criminal trial (showing anger against the Goldmans, but not against the police), and after the criminal trial.

The fear factor is an unconvincing explanation for the third time period, including now, but seems to fail for the first two. It doesn't seem reasonable that at the time Mr. Simpson wrote the farewell note he was afraid of criticizing the police, or when he was pointing the gun at his own head. I mean if he was seriously considering suicide, would he really have been afraid of what the police could do? Regardless of how bad the police were, they couldn't get revenge against a dead man.

So, Simpson should not have decided to live and to fight the charges, according to you and the only way he could prove he was contemplating suicide to you was to commit suicide. Is fgump2 smarter than all the professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
Not according to GreenIce. She says the verdict was decided before Mark Fuhrman testified which was in March. Don't forget that GreenIce has the gift of knowing what everyone is thinking.

TV Dinner,

This is a complete and total lie. There can only be two reason for you to be lying about this, either you can't read or you can read but you don't comprehend or understand what some words mean.

Or you are trying to start a war on the boards.

Which is it?

Another complete lie you posted was about a racial slur that you accussed William of using and I let it stand. I supported what you had said and I explained where I heard the term in regards to Italins.

Knowing William as I do, I know he did not know that it was considered a racial slur. I also know Wiliam would not use it again because he knows the pain slurs caused. There was no need to attack Wiliam when I pointed this out to him.

Thank you very much and my faith in mankind is being restored. :)

[William Anthony]

i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

I have honestly forgotten what Reverend Wright said about America but I do not recall thinking anything I heard him say about America was untrue.

[fgump2]

fgump2,
The LAPD lied to get a search warrant and because the judges are so weak, they allowed it because they didn't want to tank their careers. Any dreams of holding a judgeship would have been shattered and people would have demanded a recall to kick them out of office. You have been accused often and justly of acting like a mind reader. It may true that the judges incorrectly gave a search warrant and or incorrectly allowed evidence in that should have been kept out; but I balk at believing you can read minds. In any case my posting was criticizing Johnnie Cochran and his fans, not backing the prosecution. I did write that Cochran’s ethical performance was worse than the DAs, but even if I am wrong about that, that doesn’t excuse Mr. Cochran’s performance.
You forget, the DA's have a responsibilty to the residents or the people of California. Mr. Simpson was a resident and a "people" in the state of California. The DA's are supposed to persue the evidence to convict the person who is did the deeds. I the DA's main goal is to seek the truth and convict the person they accused, then they should not have one discovery issue. I disagree. In any case I wasn’t saying the DAs performance was flawless. I don’t think the DAs ever did anything as deliberately flawed as Johnnie Cochran’s opening statement. It should be possible for a person to criticize the discovery violations of both sides on the 1995 trial. I don’t think that is reasonable to expect zero discovery law violations over a 9 month period, I think you have to analyze mistakes one at a time; especially if you want to judge the reasons for the mistake. You feel Cochran's discovery violations were worse then the DA's, why? If you feel JC discovery issues were a blantent attempt to cover up his clients crimes, then you have to say the DA's were doing the exact same things, using discovery issues to cover up their side's crimes. Can't have it both ways. Can you show me a DA discovery violation as bad as the one about M. A. Gerchas? There might be, if so I owe you a small apology. Instead of writing that Johnnie Cochran behaved in an unethical manner and was ethically worse than the prosecution; I should have just written that he behaved unethically and let it go at that. How much difference does that make? It would be interesting for a legal scholar to compare the discovery violations (and other mistakes) of both sides, and try to evaluate them. I don’t think you have the legal knowledge to do that. I think a legal scholar would say that for a 9 month trial there will be a lot of mistakes made by both sides. I think some discovery mistakes are made from carelessness and being in a hurry; but that doesn’t explain 14 discovery mistakes in an opening speech.
However, both sides promised witnesses that they did not deliver. Read VA and Lange's book, they said that even cops had valuable information for the state but didn't want to get involved in the trial. They were pulling away from it, can you explain to me how a cop can say that he doesn't want to get involved in a trial? Most people are not saints. Maybe they were afraid they would get high blood pressure or a migraine headache from being grilled by the dream team. I am not about to reread that book unless I get paid for it. What sort of evidence did they withhold?


I am willing to try to judge any DA discovery mistakes, but I am not motivated enough to look them up on my own.

[martin II]

Then OJ Simpson's verbal threats to Nicole that he would kill her should show motive for him to be her killer.

oj simpson was too smart to throw away his good life by killing nicole.He had Paula asking him to marry her and many others that were willing to take Nicoles place.He had told everyone that he had moved on and left her to her own vices. Her life style could have made her a target of many including Fayes drug dealers. IMO

[fgump2]

So, Simpson should not have decided to live and to fight the charges, according to you and the only way he could prove he was contemplating suicide to you was to commit suicide. Is fgump2 smarter than all the professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal?

I don't claim to be smarter than professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal. I just claim his behavior both during the bronco chase and afterwards is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. I haven't thouught about whether or not his suicidal behavior was sincere.

Speaking of smartness, that reminds me of the criminal defense jury. They have recieved a lot of insults, some at least a little bit unfair. I think that some of the insults should have been directed against Ito and the jury selection system. I believe Ito used the system of assuming that it would be best to get a jury of people don't know much about the killings. That is that unfair bias is caused by knowledge. Part of the problem here is that the biggest causes of bias here were race, celebrity, pro athletes, and violence against women. Ito discriminated against people who liked to read a lot.

[martin II]

I am willing to try to judge any DA discovery mistakes, but I am not motivated enough to look them up on my own.

There is no such thing as discovery law that fugmp2 speaks of.

[martin II]

I don't claim to be smarter than professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal. I just claim his behavior both during the bronco chase and afterwards is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. I haven't thouught about whether or not his suicidal behavior was sincere.

Speaking of smartness, that reminds me of the criminal defense jury. They have recieved a lot of insults, some at least a little bit unfair. I think that some of the insults should have been directed against Ito and the jury selection system. I believe Ito used the system of assuming that it would be best to get a jury of people don't know much about the killings. That is that unfair bias is caused by knowledge. Part of the problem here is that the biggest causes of bias here were race, celebrity, pro athletes, and violence against women. Ito discriminated against people who liked to read a lot.


obviously you don't know that ito did not choose the jury.now what?

[fgump2]

fgump2,
Why would Simpson be angry at the police during the Bronco chase? What reason did he have to believe that the police were framing him? All he knew about the evidence was what he was told and what he heard on the news. Why would he suspect the police of doing it? People don’t like being accused of things, especially if the are innocent of it. If Simpson was innocent, he should have suspected the cops of framing him. If he was innocent, then he knew the cops were incompetent or framing him, either one is a reason for anger.
William and Martin have spoken about the police and their issues with minorities, however, both William and Martin have strongly stated that not all cops are bad and they are very important to our justice system and that we need them.

It did not take a massive amount of people to frame Simpson. It only took one or two. So he should hate all cops because of one or two? Didn't he say that he was very angry at all of the police but then he realized that he was only angry at a few of them and that he still supported the LAPD? It would have taken more than 1 or 2. I read some reporters said 20 or more, but I think at least 2 or more detectives, plus at least one criminologists at a bare minimum, with other either extremely unobservant or deliberately looking the other way. If it was just one or two they would have been sweating blood for months. Who would want to put themselves through that?

Have you ever heard a cop, regardless of rank say there is "A Blue Wall of Silence"? Don't most of them give a stupid blank look like they don't understand the question they are being asked? Part of the evidence against Drew Peterson is that one of his fellow workers (cops) testified that he made incriminating statements. Where was the blue wall of silence then?

And why is Simpson angry the Goldmans? Why does he feel that the Goldmans' are not being truthful with their motives? You tell me.
Mr. Simpson is not a coward, however, any police officer, regardless of rank who continues to deny the "Blue Wall of Silence" and protect cops they know are corrupt are the cowards, not Mr. Simpson. If Mr. Simpson thinks that some members of the LAPD police force framed him, and he is afraid to talk about it, he is a coward.
I did believe that Simpson was going to kill himself and I believe that it would have been done out guilt on how he treated Nicole and that when he was told she was in danger, he didn't take it seriously. This is strange ,his main comments about Nicole was to deny that he was at fault,he wrote 'sometimes I felt like an abused husband". However, if he was real coward, he would have killed himself and it wouldn't have mattered that he would leave behind two young children who just lost their mother. The pleas from his family, especially his mother would have been ignored. He would not have cared that his mother was so upset that she had to be admitted to the hospital. People who commit sucide don't care about anyone but themselves. Others pain is not a consideration. Clearly, at least a few people were able to get this point across to Simpson. I think Tom Lange did an excellent job in taking him. I think it was pretty clear that Simpson felt he was being framed but understood that the cops were doing their job. He never threatened them with the gun, in fact he said he was not carrying the gun because of them. Nicole was worried that Mr. Simpson would kill her. What other danger was she in?

Perhaps you need to explain to me why you think Simpson should have suspected the police during the Bronco Chase? Most people don’t like being accused of something they didn’t do. I have gotten angry at accusations less serious than murder.



I think the blue wall of silence is real, and a problem in this country and other countries. I don’t think it is reliable. The reliability level is probably not much better than the flood control in New Orleans at the time of the Katrina storm, or the reliability of the protections that are supposed to keep flu viruses from jumping from pigs to humans. I tried to start a discussion thread about the blue wall of silence, but haven’t gotten one started yet. I will continue to try. I think it is a more important item in the country’s future than either Orenthal Simpson or Johnnie Cockroach or Cochran or whatever his name was.

Unless someone can explain how the blue wall of silence could prevent drunks from spilling the beans, or prevent death bed cofessions, I will continue to think that the blue wall of sielence is quite unreliable. I think it exists, it just isn't very reliable. Fuhrman or Lange or any other cop would have to be nuts to be sure it would keep them out of prison. The prisons are full of people who are there partly because someone talked who should have known better. Try reading about the Tonya Harding case, or Gary Hirte, there are others as well. THere is an old saying. If two people know a secret, it won't be a secret for long. An acquantance from years ago is now in prison because he couldn't keep a good story to himself.

When D. Fung testified, Scheck accused him of being in on the plot to frame Simpson. After Fung finished testimony, Orenthal and some members of the defense team smiled and shook hands with him. Some NGs have said this is proof that Fung was one of the plotters. I think it shows that Orenthal knew Fung was innocent. I would never smile and shake hands with someone who I thought had framed me for murder.

[martin II]

I don't claim to be smarter than professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal. I just claim his behavior both during the bronco chase and afterwards is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. I haven't thouught about whether or not his suicidal behavior was sincere.

Speaking of smartness, that reminds me of the criminal defense jury. They have recieved a lot of insults, some at least a little bit unfair. I think that some of the insults should have been directed against Ito and the jury selection system. I believe Ito used the system of assuming that it would be best to get a jury of people don't know much about the killings. That is that unfair bias is caused by knowledge. Part of the problem here is that the biggest causes of bias here were race, celebrity, pro athletes, and violence against women. Ito discriminated against people who liked to read a lot.

The magnificant one had little interest in Fred and oj said he had no problem with fred but he was not going to pay fred a dime.Cochran understood freds rants but fred had nothing to do with the pressing of the case nor the outcome.Cochrans did his job well, oj was found not guilty.Fred has spent 14 years from one court to another seeking to get money while saying his quest it is not about money.Some have said that freds activities amount to the selling of his sons death for money. others believe he is just a sick man carrying 14 years of hatred in his heart which could eventually cause him to suffer serious health issues.

Unless oj is released from jail freds quest for his money is a mute issue and your false claims against oj and Cochran will remain what they are, pure biased nonsense.imo

[fgump2]

obviously you don't know that ito did not choose the jury.now what?

I could be wrong here. I thought Ito supervised or at least had something to do with the jury selection, and that he wanted people whose minds were uncontaminate by the news media.

[fgump2]

The prosecution was allowed wide latitude to show evidence of motive as one poster provided the link when I questioned the admissibility of some of the evidence.

I believe that the 1995 prosecution couldn't enter into court the fact that Nicole was afraid of Mr. Simpson, or that she predicted her own death.

[William Anthony]

I don't claim to be smarter than professionals who thought Simpson was suicidal. I just claim his behavior both during the bronco chase and afterwards is more consistent with guilt than with innocence. I haven't thouught about whether or not his suicidal behavior was sincere.

Speaking of smartness, that reminds me of the criminal defense jury. They have recieved a lot of insults, some at least a little bit unfair. I think that some of the insults should have been directed against Ito and the jury selection system. I believe Ito used the system of assuming that it would be best to get a jury of people don't know much about the killings. That is that unfair bias is caused by knowledge. Part of the problem here is that the biggest causes of bias here were race, celebrity, pro athletes, and violence against women. Ito discriminated against people who liked to read a lot.

Allow me to address your first paragaph at this time, with emphasis on your last sentence and ask you what this statement meant in your prior post?

I mean if he was seriously considering suicide, would he really have been afraid of what the police could do? Regardless of how bad the police were, they couldn't get revenge against a dead man.

I wonder are you trying to inflame or do you honestly forget what you say.

[William Anthony]

I believe that the 1995 prosecution couldn't enter into court the fact that Nicole was afraid of Mr. Simpson, or that she predicted her own death.

And your point is?

[martin II]

I think the blue wall of silence is real, and a problem in this country and other countries. I don’t think it is reliable. The reliability level is probably not much better than the flood control in New Orleans at the time of the Katrina storm, or the reliability of the protections that are supposed to keep flu viruses from jumping from pigs to humans. I tried to start a discussion thread about the blue wall of silence, but haven’t gotten one started yet. I will continue to try. I think it is a more important item in the country’s future than either Orenthal Simpson or Johnnie Cockroach or Cochran or whatever his name was.

Unless someone can explain how the blue wall of silence could prevent drunks from spilling the beans, or prevent death bed cofessions, I will continue to think that the blue wall of sielence is quite unreliable. I think it exists, it just isn't very reliable. Fuhrman or Lange or any other cop would have to be nuts to be sure it would keep them out of prison. The prisons are full of people who are there partly because someone talked who should have known better. Try reading about the Tonya Harding case, or Gary Hirte, there are others as well. THere is an old saying. If two people know a secret, it won't be a secret for long. An acquantance from years ago is now in prison because he couldn't keep a good story to himself.

When D. Fung testified, Scheck accused him of being in on the plot to frame Simpson. After Fung finished testimony, Orenthal and some members of the defense team smiled and shook hands with him. Some NGs have said this is proof that Fung was one of the plotters. I think it shows that Orenthal knew Fung was innocent. I would never smile and shake hands with someone who I thought had framed me for murder.


Again you got this wrong.
After he finished testifying Fung walked over to the defence table and extended HIS had to be shaken by the defence lawyers.

Please post info where Scheck accused Fung of being in on a plot.

You object to Cochran being called Magnificant yet you call him cockroach.

[tv]

i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny! :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

I am willing to try to judge any DA discovery mistakes, but I am not motivated enough to look them up on my own.

Have you been motivated to look up the 14 discovery violations you claim the defense made?

[William Anthony]

I think the blue wall of silence is real, and a problem in this country and other countries. I don’t think it is reliable. The reliability level is probably not much better than the flood control in New Orleans at the time of the Katrina storm, or the reliability of the protections that are supposed to keep flu viruses from jumping from pigs to humans. I tried to start a discussion thread about the blue wall of silence, but haven’t gotten one started yet. I will continue to try. I think it is a more important item in the country’s future than either Orenthal Simpson or Johnnie Cockroach or Cochran or whatever his name was.

Unless someone can explain how the blue wall of silence could prevent drunks from spilling the beans, or prevent death bed cofessions, I will continue to think that the blue wall of sielence is quite unreliable. I think it exists, it just isn't very reliable. Fuhrman or Lange or any other cop would have to be nuts to be sure it would keep them out of prison. The prisons are full of people who are there partly because someone talked who should have known better. Try reading about the Tonya Harding case, or Gary Hirte, there are others as well. THere is an old saying. If two people know a secret, it won't be a secret for long. An acquantance from years ago is now in prison because he couldn't keep a good story to himself.

When D. Fung testified, Scheck accused him of being in on the plot to frame Simpson. After Fung finished testimony, Orenthal and some members of the defense team smiled and shook hands with him. Some NGs have said this is proof that Fung was one of the plotters. I think it shows that Orenthal knew Fung was innocent. I would never smile and shake hands with someone who I thought had framed me for murder.

If you are truly interested, then :read:

https://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-9781560258551-3

The magnificent one did his part in alerting some to the fact that the blue wall of silence was alive and well.

[martin II]

Allow me to address your first paragaph at this time, with emphasis on your last sentence and ask you what this statement meant in your prior post?



I wonder are you trying to inflame or do you honestly forget what you say.

i think that if he reads his own post, he would be as confused as others are as to what he is talking about.Anyone can type a lot of words, but making those words make sence is another issue.

[martin II]

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny! :biggrin:

The question that i got was what did Rev Wright say that was not true.Or for you, what did Rev wright say period.I am sure you know.

[martin II]

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny! :biggrin:

so far i haven't identified with anyone that you speak of.but i did ask what did Rev Wright say that caused you to take out your broom.

[tv]

The question that i got was what did Rev Wright say that was not true.Or for you, what did Rev wright say period.I am sure you know.

So you believe the AIDS virus was invented to wipe out the black man? Do you know the virus first appeared in Africa in the 1950's -- long before the technology existed to create it.

[William Anthony]

So you believe the AIDS virus was invented to wipe out the black man? Do you know the virus first appeared in Africa in the 1950's -- long before the technology existed to create it.

What article are you reading?

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6565

[tv]

Thank you very much and my faith in mankind is being restored. :)

GreenIce knew you were calling Petrocelli greasy and never made a peep in protest. I guess she's only objects when the slur is directed at black people. Who knows and who cares? :shrug: