Random Discussions On The Case [Archive] - Page 37

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 05:54 PM

It was first recognized in 1981 but it existed long before that. Do you actually believe that it was created by man for that purpose? I read that half of blacks in the US believe that but I didn't really believe the statistic.

Here is an interesting article and a portion of it.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

In his book, The River, the journalist Edward Hooper suggests that HIV can be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat, given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s. To be reproduced, live polio vaccine needs to be cultivated in living tissue, and Hooper's belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. This, he claims, would have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, and a large number of people subsequently becoming infected with HIV-1.

Many people have contested Hooper's theories and insist that local chimps were not infected with a strain of SIVcmz that is closely linked to HIV. Furthermore, the oral administration of the vaccine would seem insufficient to cause infection in most people (SIV/HIV needs to get directly into the bloodstream to cause infection - the lining of the mouth and throat generally act as good barriers to the virus).4

In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV.5 A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.6 While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven.

The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that transferral must have happened in other ways too, as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out. More about when HIV came into being can be found below.

Would I have believed the United States Government was capable of genocide as it came to Black men with syphilis? Would I have believed that the United States gave blankets infected with small Pox to Native Americans? Would I have believed that the United States would have engaged in the opium wars? Would I have believed that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan but did not use it on Germany?

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 05:56 PM

I didn't think you meant it as a racial slur until you refused to stop saying it and then I was a little suspicious. I believe you said you'd call him whatever you wanted or words to that effect.

Well then, you can't believe that I used it as a racial slur since I have not used it afterward and yes I said words to that effect but I do not remember the exact wording.

05-24-2009, 05:57 PM

Here is an interesting article and a portion of it.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

In his book, The River, the journalist Edward Hooper suggests that HIV can be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat, given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s. To be reproduced, live polio vaccine needs to be cultivated in living tissue, and Hooper's belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. This, he claims, would have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, and a large number of people subsequently becoming infected with HIV-1.

Many people have contested Hooper's theories and insist that local chimps were not infected with a strain of SIVcmz that is closely linked to HIV. Furthermore, the oral administration of the vaccine would seem insufficient to cause infection in most people (SIV/HIV needs to get directly into the bloodstream to cause infection - the lining of the mouth and throat generally act as good barriers to the virus).4

In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV.5 A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.6 While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven.

The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that transferral must have happened in other ways too, as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out. More about when HIV came into being can be found below.

Would I have believed the United States Government was capable of genocide as it came to Black men with syphilis? Would I have believed that the United States gave blankets infected with small Pox to Native Americans? Would I have believed that the United States would have engaged in the opium wars? Would I have believed that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan but did not use it on Germany?

If you actually believe that mankind invented AIDS to wipe out an entire race of people you and I have much bigger differences than whether or not OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. You're really obsessed.

martin II

05-24-2009, 05:57 PM

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.

can you give some proof that someone said aids was invented to wipe out the black man?

05-24-2009, 05:59 PM

Well then, you can't believe that I used it as a racial slur since I have not used it afterward and yes I said words to that effect but I do not remember the exact wording.

See? I did you a favor by letting you know it's offensive to Italians. Aren't you going to thank me? :)

05-24-2009, 06:00 PM

can you give some proof that someone said aids was invented to wipe out the black man?

Jeremiah Wright said it. It also looks like William might believe it. Not sure about that.

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:06 PM

If you actually believe that mankind invented AIDS to wipe out an entire race of people you and I have much bigger differences than whether or not OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. You're really obsessed.

We have bigger differences because of America's treatment of us and our ancestors in regard to those visual differences we have.

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:07 PM

See? I did you a favor by letting you know it's offensive to Italians. Aren't you going to thank me? :)

Thanks. :)

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:08 PM

Jeremiah Wright said it. It also looks like William might believe it. Not sure about that.

I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I put it in the category of questionable things.

05-24-2009, 06:08 PM

Thanks. :)

You're so welcome. :)

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:13 PM

You're so welcome. :)

I stand corrected as it was the British that engaged in the Opium wars. However, I do not think there has been much difference in the British socio political views and the United States, with the exception of the form of Government. Although I do not like using this source, here it is.

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

05-24-2009, 06:17 PM

I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I put it in the category of questionable things.

You've just half-way renewed my faith in mankind. :)

martin II

05-24-2009, 06:17 PM

Jeremiah Wright doesn't deserve the title of Reverend. Any minister that would stand in God's house and scream God Damn America is a piece of trash. America has been good to Wright -- he lives a rich lifestyle and has the freedom to badmouth anyone or anything he wants. I'm sure there's a special place for him in heaven.

Are all Preachers required to agree with American politics?

many people that have political differances with american politics have spoken those wrods.many feel that way about america because of the criminal politics of your ex hero leader G Bush.

Did you have a problem when Jerry Fawell sp said the same or worse words? i think not.

You still have not answered the question of What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:23 PM

You've just half-way renewed my faith in mankind. :)

Well, I shall take that as a compliment as my perspective is one of a person, who and his ancestors have and has knowledge that other people of color have suffered various atrocities at the hands of some of different skin colors, and that perspective has allowed me to half-way renew your faith in mankind, means that I am doing something right. :)

martin II

05-24-2009, 06:23 PM

Jeremiah Wright said it. It also looks like William might believe it. Not sure about that.

Well then i guess you have proof that it is not true.So give it up

05-24-2009, 06:29 PM

Are all Preachers required to agree with American politics?

many people that have political differances with american politics have spoken those wrods.many feel that way about america because of the criminal politics of your ex hero leader G Bush.

Did you have a problem when Jerry Fawell sp said the same or worse words? i think not.

You still have not answered the question of What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r72/doc10house/th_broken_record.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/broken record/doc10house/broken_record.jpg?o=7)

05-24-2009, 06:33 PM

Well, I shall take that as a compliment as my perspective is one of a person, who and his ancestors have and has knowledge that other people of color have suffered various atrocities at the hands of some of different skin colors, and that perspective has allowed me to half-way renew your faith in mankind, means that I am doing something right. :)

My faith is renewed because you don't automatically believe that AIDS was created to wipe out people of color. I don't think it would take much to tip you in that direction but I'll take what I can get. :)

martin II

05-24-2009, 06:38 PM

Jeremiah Wright doesn't deserve the title of Reverend. Any minister that would stand in God's house and scream God Damn America is a piece of trash. America has been good to Wright -- he lives a rich lifestyle and has the freedom to badmouth anyone or anything he wants. I'm sure there's a special place for him in heaven.

Rev Wrights church has been good to him not America.Don't you believe Rev Wright has the right to make political comments in his church just as others do. Not all Americans agree with our policies and all have a right to comment on it. Critical comments are good for democracy.

martin II

05-24-2009, 06:44 PM

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r72/doc10house/th_broken_record.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/broken record/doc10house/broken_record.jpg?o=7)

a very creative way to evade giving the answer to the question.makes me think you don't know.

William Anthony

05-24-2009, 06:47 PM

My faith is renewed because you don't automatically believe that AIDS was created to wipe out people of color. I don't think it would take much to tip you in that direction but I'll take what I can get. :)

I will say that, judging from some of the historical events that I have mentioned, it is entirely possible.

martin II

05-24-2009, 08:05 PM

I will say that, judging from some of the historical events that I have mentioned, it is entirely possible.

The gov had been playing around with viruses long before they told us about AIDS

05-24-2009, 10:00 PM

a very creative way to evade giving the answer to the question.makes me think you don't know.

Think what you want. If it keeps you from asking me the same question over and over that I've already answered then it works for me.

martin II

05-24-2009, 10:15 PM

Think what you want. If it keeps you from asking me the same question over and over that I've already answered then it works for me.

OH my mistake. maby

I asked you exactly what did he say that was wrong, you said GOD DAM AMERICA was wrong for him to say in church.You then said something you think he said about aids which you don't know it that is true or not.

You sounded as if you had heard some of his speeches and remember what he had said that you believe was not true.

05-24-2009, 10:21 PM

OH my mistake. maby

I asked you exactly what did he say that was wrong, you said GOD DAM AMERICA was wrong for him to say in church.You then said something you think he said about aids which you don't know it that is true or not.

You sounded as if you had heard some of his speeches and remember what he had said that you believe was not true.

Here, I'll draw you a clear picture. One of the horrible things he said was that man invented the AIDS virus to wipe out the black race. WRONG. Saying the United States of kkk America was WRONG. Taking God's name in vain from the pulpit was WRONG. I've now answered your question four times. It's time for you to give it a rest. Obviously, our president realizes that the hate speech was wrong because he publicly denounced it.

I'm finished hashing over black history with you guys. If you can't stay on the case then Deepwater is going to have to address the issue. It's natural to veer off course occasionally but this is now a race discussion forum and that isn't what it's supposed to be.

martin II

05-24-2009, 10:27 PM

05-24-2009, 10:35 PM

tv
Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. J JACKSON, J Cochran, Minister Farakhan and Rev Wright and William Anthony all respected black men working for the betterment of black people seem to be people that you have problems with or a lack of respect for.I also believe you said you did not vote for our current president.But not sure about him.

I like Al Sharpton but don't like his politics, don't like Jesse Jackson (don't forget himeytown and what he said about our president talking down to ___s), don't like Farakhan (remember he called white people blue-eyed devils and the skunk of the earth), I can take or leave Johnnie Cochran. Wright only works for the betterment of himself. I have a huge amount of respect for many blacks...this bunch just doesn't happen to be the cream of the crop for me.

Now, can we get back on the case?

martin II

05-24-2009, 11:14 PM

I like Al Sharpton but don't like his politics, don't like Jesse Jackson (don't forget himeytown and what he said about our president talking down to ___s), don't like Farakhan (remember he called white people blue-eyed devils and the skunk of the earth), I can take or leave Johnnie Cochran. Wright only works for the betterment of himself. I have a huge amount of respect for many blacks...this bunch just doesn't happen to be the cream of the crop for me.

Now, can we get back on the case?

But they all have done great work for the betterment of black people and that is what is important. As a matter of fact they all have done great work for all people.Whites benefit from civil rights progress just as blacks. I am sure Wrights church member that know him better than you would dissagree with your comments about him.NY had been called hymetown by many long before JJ made that comment. Farakhan was right about some whites not all.
Sharptons politics are right on point. Some dissagree because he is outspoken
on some issues as it relates to injustices towards blacks.But that is his job and he does it well.

05-24-2009, 11:18 PM

But they all have done great work for the betterment of black people and that is what is important. As a matter of fact they all have done great work for all people.Whites benefit from civil rights progress just as blacks. I am sure Wrights church member that know him better than you would dissagree with your comments about him.NY had been called hymetown by many long before JJ made that comment. Farakhan was right about some whites not all.
Sharptons politics are right on point. Some dissagree because he is outspoken
on some issues as it relates to injustices towards blacks.But that is his job and he does it well.

I don't have to agree with you about this. I know blacks that are too good to even be in the same room with that bunch of racists. Now, can we get back to the case?

martin II

05-24-2009, 11:42 PM

I don't have to agree with you about this. I know blacks that are too good to even be in the same room with that bunch of racists. Now, can we get back to the case?

I think i understand your position on Rev Sharpton and other black leaders.
If they work tireless for the benefit of blacks and have sucess and are well respected by the black community they are racists.

05-24-2009, 11:57 PM

I think i understand your position on Rev Sharpton and other black leaders.
If they work tireless for the benefit of blacks and have sucess and are well respected by the black community they are racists.

Their hate speech makes them racists. Nothing they do negates the words they use to describe their fellow human beings. This is the end of racial discussion for me unless it relates directly to OJ Simpson. It's very unfair for this forum to have focused on your personal prejudices and agenda all day long. The only person that's talked about the trial is fgump2 and your and William's nastiness toward him will probably run him off as it has so many others.

old_soul

05-25-2009, 12:53 AM

Their hate speech makes them racists. Nothing they do negates the words they use to describe their fellow human beings. This is the end of racial discussion for me unless it relates directly to OJ Simpson. It's very unfair for this forum to have focused on your personal prejudices and agenda all day long. The only person that's talked about the trial is fgump2 and your and William's nastiness toward him will probably run him off as it has so many others.

Shades of Tawana Brawley! I'd pop in more often, tv, but lately have found the atrocities of children that are being killed at the hands of others more pressing than debating over how this murderer went free...or IF he did it :rolleyes: LE is getting better and better at not letting criminals go free when the evidence is there...dotting every i and crossing every t. None want a repeat of the oj case..........they have learned from others mistakes.

IMO Sharpton, Jackson and the like will answer to Someone...someday. Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing....

Heavens Newest Angels ~ :rose: Kaleb :rose:
Caylee :rose:
Sandra :rose:
Emma :rose:
Garett :rose:
Gavin :rose:

GreenIce

05-25-2009, 01:02 AM

[QUOTE=fgump2;9192796]
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.

fgump,

First off, Cochran did not eye ball the Goldmans during the trial. He had nothing to gain from that. First, the Goldmans were not his clients. JC did look at the Goldmans during his closing and made it very clear that the Goldmans' were lied to, as were the Browns.

I never said that he did this to change the Goldmans' minds. Nothing was going to change their minds. What I did say is that only the Browns and the Goldmans could have influenced the LAPD and the DA's to continue to the investigation as well as demand answers for the LAPD's treatment of Nicole while she was alive.

I have defended The Goldmans as well the Browns. I have gone up against Martin regarding the difference of opinon that we have regarding Fred Goldman.

The DA's could have pounced on JC's opening statements for not producing any of these witnesses that he promised. In fact, Darden, which was another dumb move on his part, talked about Dr. Lenore Walker and why the defense never put her on the stand, trying to give the jury the impression she wasn't called to the stand because her findings would hurt their case.

However, what Darden forgot is that the DA's did not call an expert on domestic abuse, to explain why Nicole may have lied on the tape, etc. Because the DA's never called an expert on this and the DV motive fell apart, there was no reason to call Dr. Walker.

There were several witnesses who gave statements about what they saw at Bundy that night. Yes, some of them were not model citizens and had credibilty problems, however, just because they were not called to the stand does not mean they were lying. Do you believe Jill Schively was lying because she sold her story and that she was no stranger to being sued?

IMO, I think the defense and the DA's know the risk of putting on witnesses who have credibility issues. If they don't need to use these witnesses, then why open that can of worms?

GreenIce

05-25-2009, 01:14 AM

Hey Martin,

Did you read my post regarding the Rockingham glove--how Clark's and VA's and Lange's book does support the defense's stance that Simpson's blood got on the glove by accident (or maybe on purpose)?

And the picture in VA's and Lange's book?

05-25-2009, 01:15 AM

Shades of Tawana Brawley! I'd pop in more often, tv, but lately have found the atrocities of children that are being killed at the hands of others more pressing than debating over how this murderer went free...or IF he did it :rolleyes: LE is getting better and better at not letting criminals go free when the evidence is there...dotting every i and crossing every t. None want a repeat of the oj case..........they have learned from others mistakes.

IMO Sharpton, Jackson and the like will answer to Someone...someday. Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing....

Heavens Newest Angels ~ :rose: Kaleb :rose:
Caylee :rose:
Sandra :rose:
Emma :rose:
Garett :rose:
Gavin :rose:

I understand completely, OS! I think I'm going to have to break away from here again myself. The abuse that is heaped on a couple of posters is becoming insufferable. I have a lot of interest in crimes against children and women so I may be joining you. I do a lot of lurking in those threads but you guys cover all the bases with such brilliance that I just enjoy reading. I'm still laughing at the 'talking out the side of your mouth' comment! I can still picture him rolling those big old eyes when he was saying that! :D

By the way, your signature is so touching! :)

bobaugust

05-25-2009, 06:08 AM

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.

What I see is that your original comment is incorrect and meaningless since it’s based on a false premise. Kaelin never testified in the criminal trial or the civil trial that he “ran” down the pathway.

I also see your new comment is also incorrect and meaningless since in the civil trial Park’s telephone records were used to document the time Park first saw Kaelin when he came down the pathway just as Kaelin testified he did.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-25-2009, 06:08 AM

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. :)

I said that no defense attorney in this case ever disputed Park’s testimony that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

If you think that I am wrong about that then post the testimony where any of Simpson’s defense attorneys disputed it. Include the date please.

bobaugust

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:22 AM

Here, I'll draw you a clear picture. One of the horrible things he said was that man invented the AIDS virus to wipe out the black race. WRONG. Saying the United States of kkk America was WRONG. Taking God's name in vain from the pulpit was WRONG. I've now answered your question four times. It's time for you to give it a rest. Obviously, our president realizes that the hate speech was wrong because he publicly denounced it.

I'm finished hashing over black history with you guys. If you can't stay on the case then Deepwater is going to have to address the issue. It's natural to veer off course occasionally but this is now a race discussion forum and that isn't what it's supposed to be.

Because you say it is wrong does not make it so. The interesting thing is why some Blacks believe that what he said was the truth and why some Whites do not and how those different feelings may have affected the different trials and verdicts. I reiterate that you were the first to speak of race and the first to broach the topic of Reverend Wright.

bobaugust

05-25-2009, 06:24 AM

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

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?

Thanks for pointing out that I mistakenly responded to my own post when I was responding to Martin’s comments.

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?

My response was,

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

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:24 AM

I don't have to agree with you about this. I know blacks that are too good to even be in the same room with that bunch of racists. Now, can we get back to the case?

What criteria do you use to judge which Blacks are better than other Blacks?

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:28 AM

Their hate speech makes them racists. Nothing they do negates the words they use to describe their fellow human beings. This is the end of racial discussion for me unless it relates directly to OJ Simpson. It's very unfair for this forum to have focused on your personal prejudices and agenda all day long. The only person that's talked about the trial is fgump2 and your and William's nastiness toward him will probably run him off as it has so many others.

I had to correct fgump2's on his nastiness toward Martin, GreenICe and me. Since then he/she has toned his posts down in regard to the personal attacks. However, there are statements in his/her posts that are still insulting and offensive, IMHO. I think that since there are more Gs that make nasty insulting rude and uncivil posts that they should rightfully take the credit for running posters off.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:31 AM

Shades of Tawana Brawley! I'd pop in more often, tv, but lately have found the atrocities of children that are being killed at the hands of others more pressing than debating over how this murderer went free...or IF he did it :rolleyes: LE is getting better and better at not letting criminals go free when the evidence is there...dotting every i and crossing every t. None want a repeat of the oj case..........they have learned from others mistakes.

IMO Sharpton, Jackson and the like will answer to Someone...someday. Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing....

Heavens Newest Angels ~ :rose: Kaleb :rose:
Caylee :rose:
Sandra :rose:
Emma :rose:
Garett :rose:
Gavin :rose:

I see you have not mentioned the names of those Whites, who falsely accuse Blacks of crime, such as Susan Smith. I think there has been more Caucasians that have done this and who rallied around the efforts to find those fictitious Blacks. "Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing...."

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:33 AM

I understand completely, OS! I think I'm going to have to break away from here again myself. The abuse that is heaped on a couple of posters is becoming insufferable. I have a lot of interest in crimes against children and women so I may be joining you. I do a lot of lurking in those threads but you guys cover all the bases with such brilliance that I just enjoy reading. I'm still laughing at the 'talking out the side of your mouth' comment! I can still picture him rolling those big old eyes when he was saying that! :D

By the way, your signature is so touching! :)

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

Marian Paroo

05-25-2009, 06:33 AM

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:37 AM

What I see is that your original comment is incorrect and meaningless since it’s based on a false premise. Kaelin never testified in the criminal trial or the civil trial that he “ran” down the pathway.

I also see your new comment is also incorrect and meaningless since in the civil trial Park’s telephone records were used to document the time Park first saw Kaelin when he came down the pathway just as Kaelin testified he did.

bobaugust

I have never denied that Kato's memory was malleable. He testified that he ran down the pathway in the grand jury proceeding, which is part of the process of bringing charges and conducting a criminal trial, if no plea agreement is reached or a defendant does not plead guilty. Ergo, you are again wrong.

You have jumped to an assumption, because Kato did not testify to coming down the Pathway as Park testified to seeing him. Remember you may call all those discrepancies minor and irrelevant but others do not have to accept your view. :)

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:41 AM

I said that no defense attorney in this case ever disputed Park’s testimony that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

If you think that I am wrong about that then post the testimony where any of Simpson’s defense attorneys disputed it. Include the date please.

bobaugust

Already did, when I posted the argument of the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken. Maybe, you don't think the discrepancies, which you call minor and irrelevant, are mistakes but I think you said Park was mistaken. :)

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:44 AM

Thanks for pointing out that I mistakenly responded to my own post when I was responding to Martin’s comments.

My response was,

You're welcome and I try to correct posts that I believe may be askew. :)

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 06:56 AM

I tried searching the thread, but couldn't find anything, and far to many contributions to even skim!!

Does anyone think there was a conspiracy theory from the state, which not even the DAs were aware of, to find Simpson innocent to avoid possible rioting were he found guilty?

I mean the prosecution wasn't asking for the DP to start with, and given the violence of the killings (I am anti DP myself) it made me go :confused:

I hadn't considered that, because I believe there was evidence of planting and it seems a far cry to plant evidence, charge someone, have a trial to find them innocent in order to possible prevent riots. However, mankind is capable of all types of convoluted ideas and actions, IMHO. Welcome aboard.

martin II

05-25-2009, 07:17 AM

martin II

05-25-2009, 07:36 AM

Their hate speech makes them racists. Nothing they do negates the words they use to describe their fellow human beings. This is the end of racial discussion for me unless it relates directly to OJ Simpson. It's very unfair for this forum to have focused on your personal prejudices and agenda all day long. The only person that's talked about the trial is fgump2 and your and William's nastiness toward him will probably run him off as it has so many others.

TV
To ask fugump2 to give proof to some of the many false claims he makes is not being nasty. Fugump2 is maby the only poster that makes nasty post naming william GI and myself as he makes untruthful comments.

Unlike most fugump2 never responds to posters request for links to prove some of his many claims. To ask him to do so is not beling nasty.

I do remember what a g did to two very great posters on these threads.
So you should consider the truth before making false claims against some ngs.

I remember what was done to Warm and Cozy and Sassy Lassie by some gs.

martin II

05-25-2009, 07:49 AM

martin II

05-25-2009, 07:54 AM

Shades of Tawana Brawley! I'd pop in more often, tv, but lately have found the atrocities of children that are being killed at the hands of others more pressing than debating over how this murderer went free...or IF he did it :rolleyes: LE is getting better and better at not letting criminals go free when the evidence is there...dotting every i and crossing every t. None want a repeat of the oj case..........they have learned from others mistakes.

IMO Sharpton, Jackson and the like will answer to Someone...someday. Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing....

Heavens Newest Angels ~ :rose: Kaleb :rose:
Caylee :rose:
Sandra :rose:
Emma :rose:
Garett :rose:
Gavin :rose:

If you are saying that LE has learned from the many mistakes lapd made in the oj case then that is indeed a good thing as we all know lapd made many
in that case.Good police work helps all.

martin II

05-25-2009, 08:57 AM

Here, I'll draw you a clear picture. One of the horrible things he said was that man invented the AIDS virus to wipe out the black race. WRONG. Saying the United States of kkk America was WRONG. Taking God's name in vain from the pulpit was WRONG. I've now answered your question four times. It's time for you to give it a rest. Obviously, our president realizes that the hate speech was wrong because he publicly denounced it.

I'm finished hashing over black history with you guys. If you can't stay on the case then Deepwater is going to have to address the issue. It's natural to veer off course occasionally but this is now a race discussion forum and that isn't what it's supposed to be.

TV

You must know that it was you that first brought up the issue of race. It was you that first brought up the name of Rev Wright and his 'RACIST VIEWS"
But when others follow up with comments on your post on race you claim you don't want to talk about race.
Whats up with that?

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 09:22 AM

TV

You must know that it was you that first brought up the issue of race. It was you that first brought up the name of Rev Wright and his 'RACIST VIEWS"
But when others follow up with comments on your post on race you claim you don't want to talk about race.
Whats up with that?

There is a tendency to blame everything on a few of the posters, irrespective of who starts a discussion, as if saying something makes it true. I sense that the conversations are now taking a direction that should they continue may be detrimental. I think we must remember the moderator's instructions on ignoring some posts.

martin II

05-25-2009, 10:05 AM

There is a tendency to blame everything on a few of the posters, irrespective of who starts a discussion, as if saying something makes it true. I sense that the conversations are now taking a direction that should they continue may be detrimental. I think we must remember the moderator's instructions on ignoring some posts.

Well tv called all the black leaders listed RACIST and then says she does not want to talk about racism. She brought up the name of Rev Wright and called him a racist and then says she is tired of talking about racism.
fughmp2 post a long list on racism and slavery and tv claims that you and i are always talking about racism. She does not ask him not to talk about racism she ask you and me only.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 10:56 AM

Well tv called all the black leaders listed RACIST and then says she does not want to talk about racism. She brought up the name of Rev Wright and called him a racist and then says she is tired of talking about racism.
fughmp2 post a long list on racism and slavery and tv claims that you and i are always talking about racism. She does not ask him not to talk about racism she ask you and me only.

I am baffled, because this was old_soul's comment,

IMO Sharpton, Jackson and the like will answer to Someone...someday. Perhaps one day they will also learn that talking out the side of your mouth is never a good thing.....

However, this was tvdinner's response,

I'm still laughing at the 'talking out the side of your mouth' comment! I can still picture him rolling those big old eyes when he was saying that!

Was it them, they, he or him?:)

05-25-2009, 11:51 AM

You two old fools have been bashing me since 8:00 this morning. Like sharks smelling blood you can't wait for me to say something you can jump on to hit me over the head with your victim status. Get over yourselves and find someone else to beat up on or here's a novel idea -- talk about the OJ Simpson case! :biggrin:

Here it is in a nutshell: Ron and Nicole were slaughtered by OJ Simpson, he was tried and found not guilty by a jury that was mesmerized by Johnnie Cochran's nursery rhymes, then he was found liable in a civil murder trial. He walked free for 14 years and his main occupation was hiding money from Fred Goldman (when he wasn't looking for the 'real' killers on the golf course, getting lap dances, acting in a porno film, committing road rage, stealing cable and writing a book where he related in disgusting detail how he murdered the mother of his children and her friend). Let's not forget to throw in the occasional 911 call when there were domestic violence incidents with his daughters and girlfriend. He had to make money at trashy venues like slasher conventions and with tell-nothing videos because all of his endorsements and previous corporate associations dried up pronto. Then, after he became a senior citizen, he was arrogant enough to think he could storm into a hotel room and rob a group of memorabilia dealers at gunpoint. That landed him in the pokey where he sits today.

You guys have a nice life. :seeya:

martin II

05-25-2009, 01:35 PM

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 01:40 PM

martin II

05-25-2009, 01:50 PM

Some gs have blamed ITO, Cochran, Clarke, Darden, Gil Garcetti for moving the trial to LA, Fung, Furhman,Vanhatter and Mazzola.
all of the people that had something to do with the prosecution presenting their case. Claiming that the prosecution and some of their witnesses screwed up the case.As if that was not enough they then call the jury racist.

Just how many people can be blamed for the prosecutions failure to prove their case is what i would like to know.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 01:54 PM

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 01:55 PM

martin II

05-25-2009, 02:49 PM

If you actually believe that mankind invented AIDS to wipe out an entire race of people you and I have much bigger differences than whether or not OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. You're really obsessed.

No one but the CIA scientist know what they had been doing with that virus before it was made public.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 05:11 PM

No one but the CIA scientist know what they had been doing with that virus before it was made public.

We all seem to realize the difference in thinking but do not want to discuss the reasons why we may think differently. I think that it is not productive, in that sense, to refer to the jury as racially biased but it is productive to consider why the different juries may have come to different conclusions and I would just like to say that the criminal jury may have arrived at the same conclusion as the jury in the socio political production if the standard of proof was the same.

martin II

05-25-2009, 06:42 PM

We all seem to realize the difference in thinking but do not want to discuss the reasons why we may think differently. I think that it is not productive, in that sense, to refer to the jury as racially biased but it is productive to consider why the different juries may have come to different conclusions and I would just like to say that the criminal jury may have arrived at the same conclusion as the jury in the socio political production if the standard of proof was the same.

A higher standard to take away freedom a lower standard to take money.

In this case some believed that they were entitled, because of who they were and who the defendant was, to get the verdict they believed the jury should have rendered. When they gave a different verdict, they, because of who they were, became the central target for wholesale unfair attacks.imo

bobaugust

05-25-2009, 06:53 PM

I have never denied that Kato's memory was malleable. He testified that he ran down the pathway in the grand jury proceeding, which is part of the process of bringing charges and conducting a criminal trial, if no plea agreement is reached or a defendant does not plead guilty. Ergo, you are again wrong.

You have jumped to an assumption, because Kato did not testify to coming down the Pathway as Park testified to seeing him. Remember you may call all those discrepancies minor and irrelevant but others do not have to accept your view. :)

If I recall correctly the preliminary hearing was conducted to charge Simpson after the grand jury was dismissed when the a motion filed by the prosecution to recuse the jury was granted.

No I am not wrong, you are. Kaelin did testify to coming down the pathway as Park testified to seeing him. Kaelin testified in the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial that he walked down the pathway. Park’s telephone records were used in the criminal trial to document the time of day Park first saw Simpson enter his house. Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to document the time of day that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

Your claim that somehow Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight because Kaelin said in the grand jury he was running is ridiculous and meaningless; a claim that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-25-2009, 06:54 PM

Already did, when I posted the argument of the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken. Maybe, you don't think the discrepancies, which you call minor and irrelevant, are mistakes but I think you said Park was mistaken. :)

You’re wrong, you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken when he testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. You seem to think that when Cochran said Park was mistaken that somehow means to you that comment applies to anything you imagine it applies to. Every defense attorney in this case understood, unlike you, that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated Park’s testimony regarding where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 07:21 PM

A higher standard to take away freedom a lower standard to take money.

In this case some believed that they were entitled, because of who they were and who the defendant was, to get the verdict they believed the jury should have rendered. When they gave a different verdict, they, because of who they were, became the central target for wholesale unfair attacks.imo

Agreed.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 07:25 PM

If I recall correctly the preliminary hearing was conducted to charge Simpson after the grand jury was dismissed when the a motion filed by the prosecution to recuse the jury was granted.

bobaugust

What is your point in this, IMHO, superfluous portion of your post? Kato and Park testified under oath in the grand jury proceeding in regard to the criminal charges and subsequent criminal trial.

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 07:39 PM

No I am not wrong, you are. Kaelin did testify to coming down the pathway as Park testified to seeing him. Kaelin testified in the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial that he walked down the pathway. Park’s telephone records were used in the criminal trial to document the time of day Park first saw Simpson enter his house. Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to document the time of day that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

Your claim that somehow Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight because Kaelin said in the grand jury he was running is ridiculous and meaningless; a claim that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed.

bobaugust

I have said that Kato's memory was malleable :), which does not change the fact that his testimony given when the events were fresher in his mind, was that he ran down the pathway. Park's testimony followed his in that proceeding but the order was reversed in the preliminary hearing and criminal trial, which began the molding of their respective memories. The testimony was when Park first saw Kato but not when Kato ran down the pathway to do his first cursory search. Because you bought the prosecution's argument hook, line and sinker, does not mean that others feel for the bait. You ignore the other discrepancies in the testimonies, because those are evidence that your conclusions could be wrong.:)

I understand why you say that I claim something, which I do not, is because you make claims. :) I simply draw inferences from all the testimony, which in the criminal trial there was reasonable doubt based on the jury instructions. You refer to the phone records being used to prove something, when the only thing that they can prove had nothing to do with your claim of what you believe they were used to prove. They were suggested to prove something or, in other words, allowed an inference to be drawn that is what they could prove but when you consider all the evidence, including the fact that Park's memory changed two and one half years later and Park's testified that Petro and others coached him, you see that the records prove nothing more than a phone call. :)

William Anthony

05-25-2009, 07:46 PM

You’re wrong, you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken when he testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. You seem to think that when Cochran said Park was mistaken that somehow means to you that comment applies to anything you imagine it applies to. Every defense attorney in this case understood, unlike you, that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated Park’s testimony regarding where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night.

bobaugust

Why do you do this type of thing? Your statement, "You’re wrong, you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken..."
My statement, " Already did, when I posted the argument of the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken." The discrepancies in the testimonies were glaring enough for anyone, but perhaps you, to understand as did all the prosecution's and the plaintiff's attorneys, who saw the need to change testimony through the questions or through coaching.:)

weezer

05-25-2009, 09:39 PM

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've been reading your posts to tv about the role of the jury -- so tell us, william, what is your understanding of who the jury represents?

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 06:56 AM

The role of the jury is to be the trier of fact. They do not represent either party in a lawsuit. Representation of the parties in a lawsuit is done by the lawyers or, if one decides, by pro se plaintiffs or defendants.

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 07:09 AM

http://www.citruscollege.edu/stdntsrv/studentdean/ab1088/Pages/CriminalandCivilProsecution.aspx

martin II

05-26-2009, 07:28 AM

Don't forget the ifs, could haves, perceptions and entirely possibles that are added by some to the prosecution's case in order to make it fit.:)

example
There was no evidence that oj or any one else jumped that fence and dropped that glove.Not one piece.So what does the prosecution do. They just say look, we have no proof but oj MUST have been the one to drop the glove because we have no other way to explain how it got there.

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 07:36 AM

example
There was no evidence that oj or any one else jumped that fence and dropped that glove.Not one piece.So what does the prosecution do. They just say look, we have no proof but oj MUST have been the one to drop the glove because we have no other way to explain how it got there.

You mean a statement like it is entirely possible that LE was not specifically looking for the exact place that Simpson jumped the fence as it was not their perception that he jumped it at any particular point and maybe, if they were not looking for that spot, they could have overlooked it? :)

martin II

05-26-2009, 07:38 AM

http://www.citruscollege.edu/stdntsrv/studentdean/ab1088/Pages/CriminalandCivilProsecution.aspx

Some looking for a excuse to further blame the jury are mixing up the role of the jury with that of the prosecution.The prosecution represents the people of the State , not the jury.The jury is a imdependant body elected to try the facts of the case.They represent themselves.imo

martin II

05-26-2009, 07:43 AM

weezer

05-26-2009, 08:31 AM

Some looking for a excuse to further blame the jury are mixing up the role of the jury with that of the prosecution.The prosecution represents the people of the State , not the jury.The jury is a imdependant body elected to try the facts of the case.They represent themselves.imo

no one needs an excuse to blame the criminal jury -- they proved themselves to be incapable of understanding concepts of science, ignorant once the science was explained, and racially biased. :shrug:

everyone understands that a jury is the 'trier of facts' in a case martin -- duh. but the jury also represents the community.

05-26-2009, 09:07 AM

no one needs an excuse to blame the criminal jury -- they proved themselves to be incapable of understanding concepts of science, ignorant once the science was explained, and racially biased. :shrug:

everyone understands that a jury is the 'trier of facts' in a case martin -- duh. but the jury also represents the community.

The community -- that's what I meant when I said the people of the state of california. I probably shouldn't have capitalized it...my mistake. Of course, I was talking about what the role of all juries should be. In this case, martin is right -- this jury represented themselves and the citizens be damned.

martin II

05-26-2009, 09:28 AM

The community -- that's what I meant when I said the people of the state of california. I probably shouldn't have capitalized it...my mistake. Of course, I was talking about what the role of all juries should be. In this case, martin is right -- this jury represented themselves and the citizens be damned.

AS indicated in williams post it is the prosecution that represents the people or community or society not the jury.the jury is impartial and therefore could not represent a community or anyone else.

martin II

05-26-2009, 09:57 AM

The community -- that's what I meant when I said the people of the state of california. I probably shouldn't have capitalized it...my mistake. Of course, I was talking about what the role of all juries should be. In this case, martin is right -- this jury represented themselves and the citizens be damned.

tv
what one may think the role of all juries should be is not what the cjs says it is.

05-26-2009, 10:12 AM

no one needs an excuse to blame the criminal jury -- they proved themselves to be incapable of understanding concepts of science, ignorant once the science was explained, and racially biased. :shrug:

everyone understands that a jury is the 'trier of facts' in a case martin -- duh. but the jury also represents the community.

"The right of the defendant to fair legal process includes having his or her fate determined by “a jury of peers,” meaning representative members of the community. "

martin II

05-26-2009, 10:33 AM

correction
One may think they know what the role of the jury should be but that is not what the CJS says it is.

martin II

05-26-2009, 10:37 AM

"The right of the defendant to fair legal process includes having his or her fate determined by “a jury of peers,” meaning representative members of the community. "

WRONG.

The prosecution represents the community/people against the accused.

weezer

05-26-2009, 11:17 AM

"The right of the defendant to fair legal process includes having his or her fate determined by “a jury of peers,” meaning representative members of the community. "

I agree with you tv and I believe most reasonable people do also. "Jury verdicts may also reflect community legal standards more accurately thando the decisions of professional judges even when they are attempting to represent those community standards." martin may be confusing 'community' with 'hood'! :tongue:

05-26-2009, 11:30 AM

I agree with you tv and I believe most reasonable people do also. "Jury verdicts may also reflect community legal standards more accurately thando the decisions of professional judges even when they are attempting to represent those community standards." martin may be confusing 'community' with 'hood'! :tongue:

Like Vincent Bugliosi said -- OJ Simpson would need a road map to find his way back to the hood! :D

weezer

05-26-2009, 11:32 AM

"The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power - to make available the common-sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge. Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US, 145, 155-156, 88 S Ct 144, 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).

"Trial by jury presupposes a jury drawn from a pool broadly representative of the community as well as impartial in a specific case. . . .[T]he broad representative character of the jury should be maintained, partly as assurance of a diffusedimpartiality and partly because sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility."

05-26-2009, 11:39 AM

weezer

05-26-2009, 11:51 AM

Thanks, weezer. 'Some' want us to believe that the jury is a group of independent people that represent only themselves. Riiiight. ;)

you're welcome. I was actually surprised that william didn't know. :shrug:

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 01:42 PM

Thanks, weezer. 'Some' want us to believe that the jury is a group of independent people that represent only themselves. Riiiight. ;)

You and your friend might want to take your show on the road, as this was your original statement.

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 then tried to say this.

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 only party, who is obligated to represent the people of any state, other than the elected officials, is the prosecution, which William understands and knows.:) The jury takes an oath of impartiality, which William understands and knows.:)

05-26-2009, 01:46 PM

You and your friend might want to take your show on the road, as this was your original statement.

You then tried to say this.

The only party, who is obligated to represent the people of any state, other than the elected officials, is the prosecution, which William understands and knows.:) The jury takes an oath of impartiality, which William understands and knows.:)

I clarified that I meant the citizens and shouldn't have capitalized people of the state of ca. If you don't understand that, too bad. I have very little patience for you and your word parsing today. :seeya::seeya::seeya:

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 01:53 PM

"The right of the defendant to fair legal process includes having his or her fate determined by “a jury of peers,” meaning representative members of the community. "

No one was arguing who the jury was composed of. We were arguing your incorrect claim that the jury was obligated to represent the loyalties of the people of the state. One should read with understanding, IMHO, before reaching conclusions that are not satisfied by the reading, such as, "The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power (who holds that power)- to make available the common-sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge.(Since the prosecution represents the state and a judge may be biased, it is inherent in the jury's obligation to restrain that use of power or to make certain the prosecution proves its case, which could be read as saying that the jury was obligated to the defendant, which I don't feel is a correct interpretation but another way of saying that the jury should remain impartial and hold the prosecution to its standard of proof) Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US, 145, 155-156, 88 S Ct 144, 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).

martin II

05-26-2009, 02:02 PM

I clarified that I meant the citizens and shouldn't have capitalized people of the state of ca. If you don't understand that, too bad. I have very little patience for you and your word parsing today. :seeya::seeya::seeya:

according to you the jury and the prosecution represents the community/people.

You can rent a uhaul van for $19.99 a day and you and your friend can take that show on the road as was suggested. hahaha

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:04 PM

I clarified that I meant the citizens and shouldn't have capitalized people of the state of ca. If you don't understand that, too bad. I have very little patience for you and your word parsing today. :seeya::seeya::seeya:

Sometimes, you just have to admit when you are wrong instead of offering things that appear illogical as a citizen would mean a person, be the word People capitalized or not, of a state, IMHO, but that does not address this portion of your clarification, with which I took umbrage, "The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens." I understand what you said and how you said it was incorrect, IMHO. If that makes you impatient, too bad. :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

weezer

05-26-2009, 02:05 PM

No one was arguing who the jury was composed of. We were arguing your incorrect claim that the jury was obligated to represent the loyalties of the people of the state. One should read with understanding, IMHO, before reaching conclusions that are not satisfied by the reading, such as, "The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power (who holds that power)- to make available the common-sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge.(Since the prosecution represents the state and a judge may be biased, it is inherent in the jury's obligation to restrain that use of power or to make certain the prosecution proves its case, which could be read as saying that the jury was obligated to the defendant, which I don't feel is a correct interpretation but another way of saying that the jury should remain impartial and hold the prosecution to its standard of proof) Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US, 145, 155-156, 88 S Ct 144, 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).

oh BS william -- ". . .to make available the common-sense judgment of the community. . ."

twist and spin away -- maybe martin will chime in about how right you are. the rest of us understand that your interpretation is simply your interpretation and more often than not -- it is wrong.

05-26-2009, 02:05 PM

No one was arguing who the jury was composed of. We were arguing your incorrect claim that the jury was obligated to represent the loyalties of the people of the state. One should read with understanding, IMHO, before reaching conclusions that are not satisfied by the reading, such as, "The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power (who holds that power)- to make available the common-sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge.(Since the prosecution represents the state and a judge may be biased, it is inherent in the jury's obligation to restrain that use of power or to make certain the prosecution proves its case, which could be read as saying that the jury was obligated to the defendant, which I don't feel is a correct interpretation but another way of saying that the jury should remain impartial and hold the prosecution to its standard of proof) Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US, 145, 155-156, 88 S Ct 144, 20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).

Not interested in arguing. I clarified what I meant. :shrug:

weezer

05-26-2009, 02:06 PM

according to you the jury and the prosecution represents the community/people.

You can rent a uhaul van for $19.99 a day and you and your friend can take that show on the road as was suggested. hahaha

I'm thinking you and william make the better show -- he speaks and your lips move! :eek: :tongue:

weezer

05-26-2009, 02:07 PM

Sometimes, you just have to admit when you are wrong instead of offering things that appear illogical as a citizen would mean a person, be the word People capitalized or not, of a state, IMHO, but that does not address this portion of your clarification, with which I took umbrage, "The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens." I understand what you said and how you said it was incorrect, IMHO. If that makes you impatient, too bad. :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

you are wrong william -- AGAIN. the jury represents the standards of the community. you purposely start this crap by parsing words -- is that how you get your little jollies?

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:08 PM

Not interested in arguing. I clarified what I meant. :shrug:

Yes, and this was your clarification, "The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. "

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:09 PM

Those are not my words. :)

weezer

05-26-2009, 02:11 PM

Yes, and this was your clarification, "The jury members were obligated to represent the citizens. "

and she was right william. the jury members are obligated to represent as impartially as possible the standards as determined by the citizens in their community.

05-26-2009, 02:14 PM

I'm thinking you and william make the better show -- he speaks and your lips move! :eek: :tongue:

I think of them as "Big Dog and Me Too"! :D

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:18 PM

"The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power - to make available the common-sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge

The loyalty should not be to an over zealous representative of the citizens of to a biased judge but to make available, not shall make available, the common sense judgment of the community, which often some call jury nullification and speak negatively of when that common sense judgment in certain situations state that the judge was biased or the prosecution over zealous or mistaken. :)
The jury represents the test of the facts of the case by members of the community and they should be impartial as their oath requires keeping in mind that the defendant has the presumption of innocence and the prosecution has the burden of proof, all of which William knows and understands.:)

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:19 PM

Tvdinner would have been correct, if that was what she said, as opposed to saying where the jury's loyalties were. :)

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 02:21 PM

I think of them as "Big Dog and Me Too"! :D

I think of "them" as a word that trapped a corrupt and racist person. :)

05-26-2009, 02:26 PM

I think of "them" as a word that trapped a corrupt and racist person. :)

I was just going to ask weezer if she wanted to place a bet on how long it would be before you brought up race and I didn't get a chance -- some things are so predictable!

weezer

05-26-2009, 02:31 PM

I was just going to ask weezer if she wanted to place a bet on how long it would be before you brought up race and I didn't get a chance -- some things are so predictable!

LOL -- when that's the only instrument you've got in your band, that's all you can play. william beats that one drum --- LOL

05-26-2009, 02:40 PM

LOL -- when that's the only instrument you've got in your band, that's all you can play. william beats that one drum --- LOL

WIthout that one note to play that's all the defenders of OJ Simpson have got. Mention evidence and all of a sudden the drum comes out.

martin II

05-26-2009, 03:39 PM

I think of them as "Big Dog and Me Too"! :D

i see you have joined your freind in calling posters names.

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 08:12 PM

I was just going to ask weezer if she wanted to place a bet on how long it would be before you brought up race and I didn't get a chance -- some things are so predictable!

I did not bring up race. I brought up a trap of a racist by the use of the word them. :)

William Anthony

05-26-2009, 08:15 PM

WIthout that one note to play that's all the defenders of OJ Simpson have got. Mention evidence and all of a sudden the drum comes out.

What evidence did you mention? We were discussing this sentence of yours, "The jury members were obligated to represent the citizen", in regard to your feelings that the criminal jury may have been racially biased and tuned the prosecution out, remember?:)

GreenIce

05-26-2009, 11:50 PM

I tried searching the thread, but couldn't find anything, and far to many contributions to even skim!!

Does anyone think there was a conspiracy theory from the state, which not even the DAs were aware of, to find Simpson innocent to avoid possible rioting were he found guilty?

I mean the prosecution wasn't asking for the DP to start with, and given the violence of the killings (I am anti DP myself) it made me go :confused:

Marin Paroo,

No, I do not believe in this theory. IMO, if the DA's proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Simpson would have been convicted and there would not have been any riots. Again, IMO.

GreenIce

05-26-2009, 11:59 PM

no i missed it
what post number is it?

Martin,

I can't find the post so I will post it again.

Both in VA's/Lange's book and Clark's book, they say that the Rockingham glove only could say the stains on the gloves were a mixture of at least two people's blood. A third person's blood may also have been present but at that time they couldn't tell.

Neither book mentions the tiny stain on the inside of the glove, which IIRC was only Simpson's blood. It is obvious to me that when the gloves were examined for these prelim tests, the blood drop was not there. So either that drop got there by accident or it was put there on purpose.

Also, this has nothing to do with the Rockingham glove but there is a picture in VA and Lange's book of the inside of the Bronco. White markers are place where blood was found---there is not a marker by the console--isn't that where the bloody smear was found?

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 12:05 AM

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 12:14 AM

You mean a statement like it is entirely possible that LE was not specifically looking for the exact place that Simpson jumped the fence as it was not their perception that he jumped it at any particular point and maybe, if they were not looking for that spot, they could have overlooked it? :)

William,

In Clark's book, she says that Kato would never ever say that he thought someone was back there. That when she asked him what he thought made the noise he wouldn't give a direct answer. When she asked him what he was looking for when he went out with the flashlight, he responded that he didn't know what he was looking for.

She then says that Kato never described the thumps he heard as someone crashing into the wall. Needless to say she was more then a tad upset with Kato. I always thought that she declared him as a hostile witness to try to send a message the jury that he was nothing but a freeloader and was protecting his meal ticket. I also felt that was not a smart move on her part.

IMO, Clark did not want these details, because if she did, she would have had Kato go back into the guest house as well as behind the wall and give a demonstration of where he heard the thumps. IMO, again.

fgump2

05-27-2009, 12:33 AM

Martin,

I can't find the post so I will post it again.

Both in VA's/Lange's book and Clark's book, they say that the Rockingham glove only could say the stains on the gloves were a mixture of at least two people's blood. A third person's blood may also have been present but at that time they couldn't tell.

Neither book mentions the tiny stain on the inside of the glove, which IIRC was only Simpson's blood. It is obvious to me that when the gloves were examined for these prelim tests, the blood drop was not there. So either that drop got there by accident or it was put there on purpose.

Also, this has nothing to do with the Rockingham glove but there is a picture in VA and Lange's book of the inside of the Bronco. White markers are place where blood was found---there is not a marker by the console--isn't that where the bloody smear was found?

Partly this is an apology for somewhat rude postings I made, and part of it is disagreeing with you as well.

I wrote something about the black man who was LAPD Chief at the time of the trial. I wrote that he was 'a proud black man' actually I was mocking what you wrote about William and Martin, which was in poor taste, and possibly confused people who might have thought I had some special knowledge of the guy. I know almost nothing about him; for example I don't remember his name. He said he thought Simpson was guiity and I think he downplayed the possibility of any blue wall of silence being a factor, but I can't remember anything else about him. I think he had worked in other police depts.

I don't feel like rereading the book by Lange and Vannatter, but I think there are other possibilities besides planting or accidents. It could have been accidently missed. If you think the police dept announced that there was blood in the bronco a few days after the killins, and then waited weeks to plant the blood, that would mean a large conspiricy. I still don't understand how the defense could say that Fuhrman planted blood in the bronco hours after the killings, and then claim there was no blood there two or more weeks later.

I don't take it very seriously that Fuhrman may have written that there was blood on a place he couldn't see. Cops are notoriously bad note takers according to Bugliosi, and Fuhrman would have been sleepy, so he could have used one word to indicate where the blood was because he couldn't remember the other word. The notes he made were a general indication of where the criminologists should look for blood; he didn't mean for the notes to be taken as abolutely accurate. At the time he probably wasn't 100% sure it wa blood.
He was sleepy at the time, and I can't imagine a sleepy person planting evidence that he knows will lbe checked and rechecked by numerous people. . This is a point others have made, it would be like an sleepy accountant cheating on an income tax form that he knows will be audited and reaudited by about a dozen or more accountants. This brings out the honesty in a lot of people.

Also you have written comments like that the gloves were planted at Bundy, and that whoever made the noise at Rockingham that Kato heard wanted the noise to be heard. I think you pulled that out of thin air. Did the unkown culprit wait for Simpson to show up, or pop out of the house and then make the noise? This sounds like what some writers used to call deus ex machina (probably garbled latin) - God out of a machine. I am pretty sure this phrase was usually used for other circumstances, but I think it fits.

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 01:15 AM

I have said that Kato's memory was malleable :), which does not change the fact that his testimony given when the events were fresher in his mind, was that he ran down the pathway. Park's testimony followed his in that proceeding but the order was reversed in the preliminary hearing and criminal trial, which began the molding of their respective memories. The testimony was when Park first saw Kato but not when Kato ran down the pathway to do his first cursory search. Because you bought the prosecution's argument hook, line and sinker, does not mean that others feel for the bait. You ignore the other discrepancies in the testimonies, because those are evidence that your conclusions could be wrong.:)

I understand why you say that I claim something, which I do not, is because you make claims. :) I simply draw inferences from all the testimony, which in the criminal trial there was reasonable doubt based on the jury instructions. You refer to the phone records being used to prove something, when the only thing that they can prove had nothing to do with your claim of what you believe they were used to prove. They were suggested to prove something or, in other words, allowed an inference to be drawn that is what they could prove but when you consider all the evidence, including the fact that Park's memory changed two and one half years later and Park's testified that Petro and others coached him, you see that the records prove nothing more than a phone call. :)

Kaelin testified he was scared when he left his room to investigate the noises; there might have been an intruder on the property and all he had was a small pen light. So what reason would he have had to run down the pathway? But even if he did run at some point it doesn’t mean he didn’t slow down or walk. He wasn’t in a race. Kaelin could have also exaggerated a little when he made that comment about running down the path in the grand jury since he never said it again. Not in the preliminary hearing, not in the criminal trial, not in his deposition, and not in the civil trial.

Park never changed his testimony with regards to seeing a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. He told that to the police and he consistently testified to that fact every time he was asked. As to Park’s pre criminal trial testimony as to what he thought Kaelin was doing when Park was waiting to be let in the gate, evidently Park realized he was mistaken to testify to something he thought may gave happened instead of saying he didn’t see what Kaelin did. So he never repeated that mistake in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

The inferences you have supposedly made William have no basis in fact and are nothing more than fantasies you imagine happened. Not only did no witness ever testify to what you imagine Kaelin did, no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Kaelin did what you imagine he did.

Park’s telephone records only document the time phone calls were made and the time they ended. But when they were used in conjunction with Park’s testimony they documented the times of what Park testified he did and what he saw; times that are far more reliable than the times Kalein guessed at without ever looking at clock or a watch.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 01:16 AM

Why do you do this type of thing? Your statement, "You’re wrong, you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken..."
My statement, " Already did, when I posted the argument of the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken." The discrepancies in the testimonies were glaring enough for anyone, but perhaps you, to understand as did all the prosecution's and the plaintiff's attorneys, who saw the need to change testimony through the questions or through coaching.:)

Why did you edit what I said? I said “you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken when he testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.”

I repeat, “You seem to think that when Cochran said Park was mistaken that somehow means to you that comment applies to anything you imagine it applies to. Every defense attorney in this case understood, unlike you, that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated Park’s testimony regarding where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night.”

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 01:57 AM

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 03:55 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9193182]No one was arguing who the jury was composed of. We were arguing your incorrect claim that the jury was obligated to represent the loyalties of the people of the state.

William,

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't all juries obligated to be "representives" of the defendant--until they go into the jury room and deliberate? Aren't all juries obligated to remain faithful to the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

IMO, the DA's represent the state, the jury represents the defendant and that is why there is more then one or two people on a jury. Again, IMO.

I can see where you are of the opinion that you have due to the presumption of innocence. It is my opinion that the jury does not represent either party but are an impartial judge of the evidence in order to determine if the state has carried its burden of proof. A jury is not obligated to represent any loyalty to either party, IMHO.

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 03:59 AM

Partly this is an apology for somewhat rude postings I made, and part of it is disagreeing with you as well.

I wrote something about the black man who was LAPD Chief at the time of the trial. I wrote that he was 'a proud black man' actually I was mocking what you wrote about William and Martin, which was in poor taste, and possibly confused people who might have thought I had some special knowledge of the guy. I know almost nothing about him; for example I don't remember his name. He said he thought Simpson was guiity and I think he downplayed the possibility of any blue wall of silence being a factor, but I can't remember anything else about him. I think he had worked in other police depts.

I don't feel like rereading the book by Lange and Vannatter, but I think there are other possibilities besides planting or accidents. It could have been accidently missed. If you think the police dept announced that there was blood in the bronco a few days after the killins, and then waited weeks to plant the blood, that would mean a large conspiricy. I still don't understand how the defense could say that Fuhrman planted blood in the bronco hours after the killings, and then claim there was no blood there two or more weeks later.

I don't take it very seriously that Fuhrman may have written that there was blood on a place he couldn't see. Cops are notoriously bad note takers according to Bugliosi, and Fuhrman would have been sleepy, so he could have used one word to indicate where the blood was because he couldn't remember the other word. The notes he made were a general indication of where the criminologists should look for blood; he didn't mean for the notes to be taken as abolutely accurate. At the time he probably wasn't 100% sure it wa blood.
He was sleepy at the time, and I can't imagine a sleepy person planting evidence that he knows will lbe checked and rechecked by numerous people. . This is a point others have made, it would be like an sleepy accountant cheating on an income tax form that he knows will be audited and reaudited by about a dozen or more accountants. This brings out the honesty in a lot of people.

Also you have written comments like that the gloves were planted at Bundy, and that whoever made the noise at Rockingham that Kato heard wanted the noise to be heard. I think you pulled that out of thin air. Did the unkown culprit wait for Simpson to show up, or pop out of the house and then make the noise? This sounds like what some writers used to call deus ex machina (probably garbled latin) - God out of a machine. I am pretty sure this phrase was usually used for other circumstances, but I think it fits.

Thanks for the apology and your insults have not gone unnoticed by me as I have mentioned them but thanks for admitting to them.

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 04:14 AM

Kaelin testified he was scared when he left his room to investigate the noises; (Please, Post this testimony) there might have been an intruder on the property and all he had was a small pen light. So what reason would he have had to run down the pathway? But even if he did run at some point it doesn’t mean he didn’t slow down or walk. (Kato testified where he started to walk) He wasn’t in a race. Kaelin could have also exaggerated a little when he made that comment about running down the path in the grand jury since he never said it again. Not in the preliminary hearing, not in the criminal trial, not in his deposition, and not in the civil trial. (He could have understood that he was not to repeat that he ran as Ms. Clark was good at calling attention to witnesses when she did not get the reaction or testimony she liked).

Park never changed his testimony with regards to seeing a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. He told that to the police and he consistently testified to that fact every time he was asked. As to Park’s pre criminal trial testimony as to what he thought Kaelin was doing when Park was waiting to be let in the gate, evidently Park realized he was mistaken to testify to something he thought may gave happened instead of saying he didn’t see what Kaelin did. So he never repeated that mistake in the criminal trial or the civil trial. Park said in the criminal trial that Kato was standing there and, IIRC, waved at him. I see you have added a new word, evidently, to your arsenal of words to support your conclusion. Allow me to use it? Evidently Park's memory was molded. :)

The inferences you have supposedly made William have no basis in fact and are nothing more than fantasies you imagine happened. Not only did no witness ever testify to what you imagine Kaelin did, no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Kaelin did what you imagine he did.

Park’s telephone records only document the time phone calls were made and the time they ended. But when they were used in conjunction with Park’s testimony they documented the times of what Park testified he did and what he saw; times that are far more reliable than the times Kalein guessed at without ever looking at clock or a watch.

bobaugust

My inferences are drawn for all the testimonies and are not dependent on a bunch of ifs, could haves, maybe, entirely possibles and evidentlys. :)

This is true and this is what I told you, "Park’s telephone records only document the time phone calls were made and the time they ended." However, you want to now use them to document the time Kato left his room and when Kato heard the thumps, which can't be done. An argument can be made to that effect but to claim that the phone records document anything other than what I have told you they document is an incorrect claim, IMHO.

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 04:19 AM

Why did you edit what I said? I said “you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken when he testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.”

I repeat, “You seem to think that when Cochran said Park was mistaken that somehow means to you that comment applies to anything you imagine it applies to. Every defense attorney in this case understood, unlike you, that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated Park’s testimony regarding where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night.”

bobaugust

I did not edit what you said but I did include the relevant portion where you attempted to change what I said. I never claimed that any lawyer testified in the case but did post that portion of the magnificent one's argument saying that Park was mistaken.

Yes, after reading all the prior statements, I understood the fact that a reasonable inference could be drawn that Park was mistaken as to where he saw Kato walking. :)

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 06:38 AM

Partly this is an apology for somewhat rude postings I made, and part of it is disagreeing with you as well.

I wrote something about the black man who was LAPD Chief at the time of the trial. I wrote that he was 'a proud black man' actually I was mocking what you wrote about William and Martin, which was in poor taste, and possibly confused people who might have thought I had some special knowledge of the guy. I know almost nothing about him; for example I don't remember his name. He said he thought Simpson was guiity and I think he downplayed the possibility of any blue wall of silence being a factor, but I can't remember anything else about him. I think he had worked in other police depts.

I don't feel like rereading the book by Lange and Vannatter, but I think there are other possibilities besides planting or accidents. It could have been accidently missed. If you think the police dept announced that there was blood in the bronco a few days after the killins, and then waited weeks to plant the blood, that would mean a large conspiricy. I still don't understand how the defense could say that Fuhrman planted blood in the bronco hours after the killings, and then claim there was no blood there two or more weeks later.

I don't take it very seriously that Fuhrman may have written that there was blood on a place he couldn't see. Cops are notoriously bad note takers according to Bugliosi, and Fuhrman would have been sleepy, so he could have used one word to indicate where the blood was because he couldn't remember the other word. The notes he made were a general indication of where the criminologists should look for blood; he didn't mean for the notes to be taken as abolutely accurate. At the time he probably wasn't 100% sure it wa blood.
He was sleepy at the time, and I can't imagine a sleepy person planting evidence that he knows will lbe checked and rechecked by numerous people. . This is a point others have made, it would be like an sleepy accountant cheating on an income tax form that he knows will be audited and reaudited by about a dozen or more accountants. This brings out the honesty in a lot of people.

Also you have written comments like that the gloves were planted at Bundy, and that whoever made the noise at Rockingham that Kato heard wanted the noise to be heard. I think you pulled that out of thin air. Did the unkown culprit wait for Simpson to show up, or pop out of the house and then make the noise? This sounds like what some writers used to call deus ex machina (probably garbled latin) - God out of a machine. I am pretty sure this phrase was usually used for other circumstances, but I think it fits.

fgump2,

Apology accepted on my behalf.

I don't have a lot of time but I will address a few of your points now.

No one ever claimed it was MF who planted the blood in the Bronco. IMO, I believe that he opened the Bronco and when he opened the door he did see blood on the bottom sill--which was consistent with Simpson's story of how and when he cut his hands.

There were well over 10 people who testified they did not see blood in the Bronco where it was reported to have been. I am sure there are a lot more people who did not see the blood.

Who did the DA's put on the stand to say otherwise? Dennis Fung and 4 lead detectives? They had credibility issues, all of them.

Vanatter carried Simpson's reference vial as well as Ron and Nicole's and he lied about why he did it. He also lies who gave it to him. It would not take a massive amount of people to participate in frame up.

martin II

05-27-2009, 08:56 AM

The community -- that's what I meant when I said the people of the state of california. I probably shouldn't have capitalized it...my mistake. Of course, I was talking about what the role of all juries should be. In this case, martin is right -- this jury represented themselves and the citizens be damned.

If the prosecution and the jury represemted the community/people, that would cause a imbalance to take place.the cjs does not allow that.

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 05:10 PM

GreenIce, I just can’t let this posting go unanswered

Unless maybe you think that some people’s blood looks different then other people’s blood no one could tell whose blood was on the glove until the blood was tested.

There is absolutely no evidence that any blood was planted on the glove or any where else in this case. Only uninformed or misinformed people make the imaginary speculative claim that blood was planted.

The picture of the Bronco in Vannatter and Lange’s book only shows the driver’s open door and part of the driver’s seat. It doesn’t show the center console.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Go back and re-read my posts. It is clear what I wrote.

Over 10 people were either inside or looked specifically for blood, looked at the exact same console where blood was later found on it. You figure out how all these people didn't see the blood.

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 05:13 PM

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9193327]

I can see where you are of the opinion that you have due to the presumption of innocence. It is my opinion that the jury does not represent either party but are an impartial judge of the evidence in order to determine if the state has carried its burden of proof. A jury is not obligated to represent any loyalty to either party, IMHO.

William,

You are right, they have to convince the lawyers and the judge that when it comes right down to it, they could be fair and impartial when viewing the evidence.

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 07:39 PM

My inferences are drawn for all the testimonies and are not dependent on a bunch of ifs, could haves, maybe, entirely possibles and evidentlys. :)

This is true and this is what I told you, "Park’s telephone records only document the time phone calls were made and the time they ended." However, you want to now use them to document the time Kato left his room and when Kato heard the thumps, which can't be done. An argument can be made to that effect but to claim that the phone records document anything other than what I have told you they document is an incorrect claim, IMHO.

The inferences I make are based on the physical evidence and what witnesses testified to in this case, your inferences are based on your imagination and speculation.

No witness including Kaelin and no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred or claimed that when Kaelin came back from behind the garage he went to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there and that’s when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house. You’re the only one William who has ever made that ridiculous claim. But that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

That’s right I believe it is completely reasonable to use Park’s telephone records in conjunction with Park and Kaelin’s testimony to determine a more accurate time as to when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. Just as Park’s telephone records were used in conjunction with Park’s testimony to determine an accurate time Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway, and when Park saw Simpson come up from his driveway and enter his house.

July 5, 1994 Kaelin
Q Okay. So after you heard those thumps, you indicated before you thought it was an earthquake or maybe someone outside?
A Right. I said to her on the phone, I said as a joke, "if I don't call back in ten minutes, start to worry."
Q And were you worried?
A Yes.
Q Were you scared?
A Yes.
Q Did you think it might be a prowler?
A Yes.
Q So what did you do?
A Well, I got the little flashlight and I went out to check on the noise.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 07:39 PM

I did not edit what you said but I did include the relevant portion where you attempted to change what I said. I never claimed that any lawyer testified in the case but did post that portion of the magnificent one's argument saying that Park was mistaken.

Yes, after reading all the prior statements, I understood the fact that a reasonable inference could be drawn that Park was mistaken as to where he saw Kato walking. :)

Of course you edited my statement by leaving off the last part of it, I said no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Park was mistaken when he testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

You keep saying you posted Cochran saying Park was mistaken but the fact is that you have never posted anything where Cochran or any other defense attorney in this case ever said Park was mistaken about this part of his testimony. Thanks for showing that my statement is correct.

Your inference that Park was mistaken when he said he saw Kaelin come from behind the house with a flashlight is not a reasonable inference since it is based only on your imagination of what you fantasize Kaelin did when he returned from behind the garage. I don’t believe Inferences based on imaginary evidence are reasonable inferences.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-27-2009, 07:40 PM

Mr. August,

Go back and re-read my posts. It is clear what I wrote.

Over 10 people were either inside or looked specifically for blood, looked at the exact same console where blood was later found on it. You figure out how all these people didn't see the blood.

GreenIce, I reread your post and my response is the same.

You say over ten people were either inside or looked “specifically” for blood at the same console where blood was later found on it? Where did you get that information from?

The fact is that every witness who testified to being in the Bronco was in the Bronco after the criminalists had already collected the blood stains from the center console. Stains that were found on the passenger side of the center console, not the driver’s side.

bobaugust

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 08:07 PM

Of course you edited my statement by leaving off the last part of it, I said no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Park was mistaken when he testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

You keep saying you posted Cochran saying Park was mistaken but the fact is that you have never posted anything where Cochran or any other defense attorney in this case ever said Park was mistaken about this part of his testimony. Thanks for showing that my statement is correct.

Your inference that Park was mistaken when he said he saw Kaelin come from behind the house with a flashlight is not a reasonable inference since it is based only on your imagination of what you fantasize Kaelin did when he returned from behind the garage. I don’t believe Inferences based on imaginary evidence are reasonable inferences.

bobaugust

It appears that you have forgotten what you said, so here it is.

Why did you edit what I said? I said “you have never posted any testimony by Cochran or any other of Simpson’s defense attorneys specifically claiming that Park was mistaken when he testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.”

I do not see your claim that you posted "no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed..." in that post.

A mistake is a mistake and a reading of all the testimonies exposes the mistakes. Have you ever heard the adage that one does not have to change the truth?

My inference is based on all the testimonies to include the changes and molding of testimony.:) Your conclusion is based on your conclusion and, therefore, you need not consider the all the evidence that does not support your conclusion. :)

William Anthony

05-27-2009, 08:09 PM

The inferences I make are based on the physical evidence and what witnesses testified to in this case, your inferences are based on your imagination and speculation.

No witness including Kaelin and no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred or claimed that when Kaelin came back from behind the garage he went to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there and that’s when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house. You’re the only one William who has ever made that ridiculous claim. But that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

That’s right I believe it is completely reasonable to use Park’s telephone records in conjunction with Park and Kaelin’s testimony to determine a more accurate time as to when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. Just as Park’s telephone records were used in conjunction with Park’s testimony to determine an accurate time Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway, and when Park saw Simpson come up from his driveway and enter his house.

July 5, 1994 Kaelin
Q Okay. So after you heard those thumps, you indicated before you thought it was an earthquake or maybe someone outside?
A Right. I said to her on the phone, I said as a joke, "if I don't call back in ten minutes, start to worry."
Q And were you worried?
A Yes.
Q Were you scared?
A Yes.
Q Did you think it might be a prowler?
A Yes.
Q So what did you do?
A Well, I got the little flashlight and I went out to check on the noise.

bobaugust

You always become uncivil when there is evidence that you could be wrong in your conclusions.:seeya:, :seeya:. :seeya:

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 11:28 PM

GreenIce, I reread your post and my response is the same.

You say over ten people were either inside or looked “specifically” for blood at the same console where blood was later found on it? Where did you get that information from?

The fact is that every witness who testified to being in the Bronco was in the Bronco after the criminalists had already collected the blood stains from the center console. Stains that were found on the passenger side of the center console, not the driver’s side.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Okay, I'll play your well known game.

I clearly posted that in two books, tests on the Rockingham glove showed a mixture of two people's blood and possibly a third person's blood. They confirmed a mixture of two and were going to do other tests to see if a third person's blood was also in the mixture.

Neither one of these books said anything about the drop of blood that was only Simpson's on the inside cuff of the glove. There was no mixture, it was his blood and his blood alone. Had that drop of blood been there that night, it would have been seen by the experts, it would have been tested by the experts and it would have been photographed and the results would have been it was Simpson's blood and his his blood alone.

Not seeing the blood in the Bronco was testified by at least 3 people in the trial. At least one of these people was with a group of 3 or four other men who also looked for the blood in the Bronco.

The Bronco was moved at least 4 times and again, no one testified to seeing the blood that the press reported. All these witnesses didn't see this blood before the date Dennis Fung was sent back out to find out if it was true what she was being told. Well wouldn't you know it, he goes out there and not only does he find the blood but he also gets the sample that contains Ron's and Nicole's mixture.

I consider the console the area that is between the steering wheel and the glove box.

Also, there is also the issue of fingerprint dust but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but it wasn't good for the DA's.

GreenIce

05-27-2009, 11:53 PM

Also you have written comments like that the gloves were planted at Bundy, and that whoever made the noise at Rockingham that Kato heard wanted the noise to be heard. I think you pulled that out of thin air. Did the unkown culprit wait for Simpson to show up, or pop out of the house and then make the noise? This sounds like what some writers used to call deus ex machina (probably garbled latin) - God out of a machine. I am pretty sure this phrase was usually used for other circumstances, but I think it fits.

fgump2,

I never said the gloves were planted at Bundy. I believe they were left behind on purpose. I do not believe that both gloves would have been left inside the killing cage rather one may have been left in the area, perhaps in the alley.

I do believe that if the noise that Kato heard had anything to do with the murders he was meant to hear them. The DA's treatment of Kato make it clear they could not prove how the glove got back there. They never presented any witness who gave a theory on how Simpson got behind the wall and how he was able to come out of the alley and not leave a speck of trace evidence.

I believe the phone call to the police station about two bodies on Bundy is a huge clue that the killers wanted the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago. I also believe that it is possible that Kato may have turned off the jets for the hot tub but someone else may have turned them on.

We know that Nicole was being followed, we know that Paula's SUV was apparently stolen for this mission. While many rumours tried to link this to Robert Kardashian and/or OJ Simpson it was never proved. IMO, had then been able to link it to Simpson, it would have been the nail in the coffin for Simpson.

IMO, there is no evidence at Bundy that leads anyone to believe the killers were in a hurry to leave. Yet, it is possible that the footprints that were left behind could have been made after Ron and Nicole were dead several minutes and the blood had pooled enough to leave footprints.

There was evidence that at least one other set of footprints were left but were not Bruno Maglis and I am not talking about the one regarding the trowel.

It makes no sense that Simpson would have risked being seen or heard by the only person who he knew was on the estate. IMO.

GreenIce

05-28-2009, 12:08 AM

[QUOTE=fgump2;9193338]
I don't take it very seriously that Fuhrman may have written that there was blood on a place he couldn't see. Cops are notoriously bad note takers according to Bugliosi, and Fuhrman would have been sleepy, so he could have used one word to indicate where the blood was because he couldn't remember the other word. The notes he made were a general indication of where the criminologists should look for blood; he didn't mean for the notes to be taken as abolutely accurate. At the time he probably wasn't 100% sure it wa blood.

He was sleepy at the time, and I can't imagine a sleepy person planting evidence that he knows will lbe checked and rechecked by numerous people. . This is a point others have made, it would be like an sleepy accountant cheating on an income tax form that he knows will be audited and reaudited by about a dozen or more accountants. This brings out the honesty in a lot of people.

fgump2,

First, it appears to me that Bugliosi, like many other legal talking heads during the trial were making up excuses for the LAPD. When ever an action was called into question, either the person was lazy or incompetent or showed poor judgement---none these are acceptable and IMO, impossible to believe.

Mark Fuhrman wrote his notes and they were very detailed--if Lange and Vanatter hated taking notes so bad, then they should have thanked MF for his notes--he did what they were supposed to. The claim of not reading his notes is again, unbelieveable. And, cops aren't the only one's who hate taking notes, however, it is there job to do so and it is their job to know that they will be called upon to testify.

Do you really think any cops was sleepy after seeing Ron and Nicole's bodies? I am pretty sure that sight alone would have woke anyone quicker then 1 million cups of coffee.

I also believe that cops, like doctors know they can be called to report for duty regardless of the time. They know their jobs are not and never will be 9 to 5.

If MF was in fact too tired and he knew it was going to hamper his job performance, then he should have told Ron Phillps this and not report for duty. Don't forget, MF was not on call that night.

It seems many experts do agree that being over tired has similar traits of person being drunk--if this is true, then he should not have reported for duty--IMO.

bobaugust

05-28-2009, 02:17 AM

I

A mistake is a mistake and a reading of all the testimonies exposes the mistakes. Have you ever heard the adage that one does not have to change the truth?

My inference is based on all the testimonies to include the changes and molding of testimony.:) Your conclusion is based on your conclusion and, therefore, you need not consider the all the evidence that does not support your conclusion. :)

The fact is that you William and only you has ever claimed that Park was mistaken when he consistently testified that he saw a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact is that you William and only you has ever claimed that when Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage that he went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there and that is when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house.

Your claims are not based on any evidence in this case, only on imaginary evidence that you have fantasized. As I said before that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

The fact is that no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed what you are claiming. Is every one wrong and William Anthony the only one who is right? I think not. Your claims are false William and you’re the one who is mistaken.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-28-2009, 02:18 AM

You always become uncivil when there is evidence that you could be wrong in your conclusions.:seeya:, :seeya:. :seeya:

The fact is that you William and only you has ever claimed that Park was mistaken when he consistently testified that he saw a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact is that you William and only you has ever claimed that when Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage that he went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there and that is when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house.

Your claims are not based on any evidence in this case, only on imaginary evidence that you have fantasized. As I said before that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

The fact is that no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed what you are claiming. Is every one wrong and William Anthony the only one who is right? I think not. Your claims are false William and you’re the one who is mistaken.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-28-2009, 02:19 AM

Mr. August,

Okay, I'll play your well known game.

I clearly posted that in two books, tests on the Rockingham glove showed a mixture of two people's blood and possibly a third person's blood. They confirmed a mixture of two and were going to do other tests to see if a third person's blood was also in the mixture.

Neither one of these books said anything about the drop of blood that was only Simpson's on the inside cuff of the glove. There was no mixture, it was his blood and his blood alone. Had that drop of blood been there that night, it would have been seen by the experts, it would have been tested by the experts and it would have been photographed and the results would have been it was Simpson's blood and his his blood alone.

Not seeing the blood in the Bronco was testified by at least 3 people in the trial. At least one of these people was with a group of 3 or four other men who also looked for the blood in the Bronco.

The Bronco was moved at least 4 times and again, no one testified to seeing the blood that the press reported. All these witnesses didn't see this blood before the date Dennis Fung was sent back out to find out if it was true what she was being told. Well wouldn't you know it, he goes out there and not only does he find the blood but he also gets the sample that contains Ron's and Nicole's mixture.

I consider the console the area that is between the steering wheel and the glove box.

Also, there is also the issue of fingerprint dust but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but it wasn't good for the DA's.

GreenIce, no not games, just facts.

Clark wrote that the first tests on the blood found on the glove “contained genetic markers from both victims with a strong possibility that Simpson’s blood was in the mix.”

Lange and Vannatter’s book said “the blood found on the glove was consistent with a mixture of Brown’s, Goldman’s, and Simpson’s blood.”
“Scientific analysis later determined that a blood spot (the spot you are referring to) was consistent with Simpson’s blood.”

No one testified to seeing what the press reported? The press was wrong. Photographs were taken of the blood in the Bronco before Dennis Fung collected it on June 14, 1994. There were two witnesses who testified that they were in the Bronco but didn’t see any blood. John Meraz went in the Bronco on June 15 and testified he didn’t see any blood and he didn’t see any fingerprint dust. He was shown photographs taken the previous day showing fingerprint dust on the doors and red stains in the Bronco that he didn’t see. Meraz was the witness who admitted to taking some credit card receipts from the Bronco.

The second witness was William Blasini who was in the Bronco on June 21, 1994. He also testified he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust. He was also shown the photographs of the blood stains and the fingerprint dust that were taken on June 14 that he didn’t see.

What you consider the console area is not the center console that blood stains were found on. The center console was between the driver’s seat and the passenger seat.

http://bobaugust.com/bconsole.jpg
http://bobaugust.com/aug26.jpg

bobaugust

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 05:28 AM

the fact is that you william and only you has ever claimed that park was mistaken when he consistently testified that he saw a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact is that you william and only you has ever claimed that when kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage that he went back to the ashford sidewalk and stood there and that is when park first saw him and then simpson enter his house.

Your claims are not based on any evidence in this case, only on imaginary evidence that you have fantasized. As i said before that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

The fact is that no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed what you are claiming. Is every one wrong and william anthony the only one who is right? I think not. Your claims are false william and you’re the one who is mistaken.

Bobaugust

:), :). :), ;)

GreenIce

05-28-2009, 06:26 AM

GreenIce, no not games, just facts.

Clark wrote that the first tests on the blood found on the glove “contained genetic markers from both victims with a strong possibility that Simpson’s blood was in the mix.”

Lange and Vannatter’s book said “the blood found on the glove was consistent with a mixture of Brown’s, Goldman’s, and Simpson’s blood.”
“Scientific analysis later determined that a blood spot (the spot you are referring to) was consistent with Simpson’s blood.”

No one testified to seeing what the press reported? The press was wrong. Photographs were taken of the blood in the Bronco before Dennis Fung collected it on June 14, 1994. There were two witnesses who testified that they were in the Bronco but didn’t see any blood. John Meraz went in the Bronco on June 15 and testified he didn’t see any blood and he didn’t see any fingerprint dust. He was shown photographs taken the previous day showing fingerprint dust on the doors and red stains in the Bronco that he didn’t see. Meraz was the witness who admitted to taking some credit card receipts from the Bronco.

The second witness was William Blasini who was in the Bronco on June 21, 1994. He also testified he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust. He was also shown the photographs of the blood stains and the fingerprint dust that were taken on June 14 that he didn’t see.

What you consider the console area is not the center console that blood stains were found on. The center console was between the driver’s seat and the passenger seat.

http://bobaugust.com/bconsole.jpg
http://bobaugust.com/aug26.jpg

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I will go back and look at both books again. However, there was not one mention of that lone drop of blood that was said to be Simpson's blood. It is obvious that drop of blood was not there when the first tests were done.

One of the witnesses who testified is a police detective. Also you ignore the fact that other people were with one of the witnesses and did not see any blood where blood was later collected by Fung, on September 1, 1994.

The Bronco was not secured and it was moved several times. What witnesses did the DA's produce to say they saw blood where is was later collected? Dennis Fung? MF? Having a member of the LAPD or the lab testify they saw this blood does not support the evidence or the truth of that evidence. Bottom line, the defense had at least 10 times as many witnesses then the DA's had about this issue---there was no blood where it was later found.

bobaugust

05-28-2009, 01:18 PM

Mr. August,

I will go back and look at both books again. However, there was not one mention of that lone drop of blood that was said to be Simpson's blood. It is obvious that drop of blood was not there when the first tests were done.

One of the witnesses who testified is a police detective. Also you ignore the fact that other people were with one of the witnesses and did not see any blood where blood was later collected by Fung, on September 1, 1994.

The Bronco was not secured and it was moved several times. What witnesses did the DA's produce to say they saw blood where is was later collected? Dennis Fung? MF? Having a member of the LAPD or the lab testify they saw this blood does not support the evidence or the truth of that evidence. Bottom line, the defense had at least 10 times as many witnesses then the DA's had about this issue---there was no blood where it was later found.

GreenIce, just because every blood stain on the glove was not tested at the same time does not mean the blood that was later tested was not on the glove when the glove was found. The results of the first blood tests were given to Clark on June 16, 1994, four days after the murders. That blood was found to be a mixture of both victims and Simpson’s blood. Other tests were later conducted on additional blood stains found on the glove including the spot inside the wrist notch that was found to be Simpson’s blood,

IIRC Detective Lange never testified to seeing blood inside the Bronco because he left Rockingham and returned to Bundy to handle that crime scene just after the glove was found, before it was light outside.

Of course no one saw the blood stains that were later found on August 26 since they only became visible after SID crime technicians removed the passenger seat and conducted further testing using the substance Luminol that makes blood glow in the dark. An SID criminalist collected the additional blood evidence, not Fung.

Detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman as well as Patrol Officers Thompson, Gonzalez and Aston all testified to seeing blood inside the Bronco before the Bronco was towed from Rockingham. You say the defense had 10 times the amount of witnesses than the DA’s regarding this issue. So tell us please what 50 witnesses testified for the defense that they didn’t see blood in the Bronco before photographs were taken and Fung collected stains on June 14.

bobaugust

martin II

05-28-2009, 02:03 PM

weezer

05-28-2009, 02:33 PM

05-28-2009, 02:36 PM

tell us how YOU believe it's done martin.

This should be good.

bobaugust

05-28-2009, 03:24 PM

bob
are you suggesting that the lapd lab if the find say 5 stains on a item they may test two today and wait a week and test one more and then wait another week or so and then test the last two?
do you believe that?

I’m not suggesting anything; I’m simply explaining what was done. The first tests conducted on some of the blood on the glove; evidently the larger stains, were RFLP tests. Later PCR testing was conducted on smaller stains.

bobaugust

Kayleighjo

05-28-2009, 03:28 PM

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.

Ever watched a movie with the N word in it? Do you stop the movie at that point and refuse to watch another moment of it?

Did you know that there are tons of songs out there with the N word in them? Do you write to the artists and the record labels denouncing the making of that music?

Stand up in protest and disgust when Jesse Jackson's use of the N word came to light?

Didn't think so.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 03:31 PM

Ever watched a movie with the N word in it? Do you stop the movie at that point and refuse to watch another moment of it?

Did you know that there are tons of songs out there with the N word in them? Do you write to the artists and the record labels denouncing the making of that music?

Stand up in protest and disgust when Jesse Jackson's use of the N word came to light?

Didn't think so.

This has what to do with a member of LE denying, under oath, that he used the N word or the fact that he admitted to planting/fabricating/evidence or harassing interracial couples, which that type of couple he found disgusting, according to the evidence?

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 03:34 PM

IIRC Detective Lange never testified to seeing blood inside the Bronco because he left Rockingham and returned to Bundy to handle that crime scene just after the glove was found, before it was light outside.

So, Lang did not have a flashlight or one available to him and he could not start detecting until it became light outside, correct?

Kayleighjo

05-28-2009, 03:47 PM

This has what to do with a member of LE denying, under oath, that he used the N word or the fact that he admitted to planting/fabricating/evidence or harassing interracial couples, which that type of couple he found disgusting, according to the evidence?

It has everything to do with responding to that stupid post. If that chick wants to wax on about how she KNOWS how someone else is feeling or how the N word is SO insulting and should not be tolerated by anyone under any circumstance then she better be prepared to fess up on her own actions regarding it.

She wants to talk about how the word shouldn't be a part of the screenplay I wanna know if she's ever watched a movie with that word and if so did she stop watching immediately. She wants to talk about people who haven't denounced Fuhrman then I wanna know if she's denounced Jesse Jackson. I also wanna know what she calls those people who haven't denounced Jesse Jackson.

My post is relevant when it's in regard to something somebody else brought up in the first place.

05-28-2009, 03:48 PM

Ever watched a movie with the N word in it? Do you stop the movie at that point and refuse to watch another moment of it?

Did you know that there are tons of songs out there with the N word in them? Do you write to the artists and the record labels denouncing the making of that music?

Stand up in protest and disgust when Jesse Jackson's use of the N word came to light?

Didn't think so.

Hi Kayleighjo. :) I love the way she pulled out her clairvoyant skills and made a lot of assumptions about what I do or think. I swear, the girl is amazing!

First she said she knew I didn't allow the word in my home because it's painful to those on the receiving end and then she says I refuse to acknowledge the pain the word causes. Huh? :confused:

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 04:15 PM

It has everything to do with responding to that stupid post. If that chick wants to wax on about how she KNOWS how someone else is feeling or how the N word is SO insulting and should not be tolerated by anyone under any circumstance then she better be prepared to fess up on her own actions regarding it.

She wants to talk about how the word shouldn't be a part of the screenplay I wanna know if she's ever watched a movie with that word and if so did she stop watching immediately. She wants to talk about people who haven't denounced Fuhrman then I wanna know if she's denounced Jesse Jackson. I also wanna know what she calls those people who haven't denounced Jesse Jackson.

My post is relevant when it's in regard to something somebody else brought up in the first place.

The relevant portion of your post, IMHO, deals with how Blacks, to include Simpson, who heard the words spoken in the manner they were spoken by MF, who had taken an oath to serve and protect all citizens and made the statement he made in regard to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating and his hatred of interracial couples. I believe GreenIce's post was an attempt to state a point that I agree with, which is that Black people have the right to respond in the manner they see individually proper, and should not have those sentiments negated by Caucasians, whose ancestors and themselves were not a victim of the stereotypes and resulting treatment associated with the word. If I am mistaken, the I hope GreenICe will clarify.

05-28-2009, 04:24 PM

Kayleighjo

05-28-2009, 04:31 PM

The relevant portion of your post, IMHO, deals with how Blacks, to include Simpson, who heard the words spoken in the manner they were spoken by MF, who had taken an oath to serve and protect all citizens and made the statement he made in regard to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating and his hatred of interracial couples. I believe GreenIce's post was an attempt to state a point that I agree with, which is that Black people have the right to respond in the manner they see individually proper, and should not have those sentiments negated by Caucasians, whose ancestors and themselves were not a victim of the stereotypes and resulting treatment associated with the word. If I am mistaken, the I hope GreenICe will clarify.

Uh, ok. Jesse Jackson not a civil rights leader? So because he's black he can say whatever the hell he wants to say and gets the "free pass, I'm black" card?

GreenIce made the specific statement that the N word does not belong in a screenplay. Period. She didn't say it doesn't belong in a screenplay by a member of LE.

And oh God, are we giving a free pass also to anybody who's had an ancestor that was a victim of stereotype? Never mind the fact that I myself was the constant victim of stereotype from blacks with my blonde hair and blue eyes when I was with my black man. I was jumped by 5 black chicks in the parking lot of my workplace who told me that I was no good like "every other blonde b*tch in the world".

Undoubtedly both you and GreenIce will trivialize that though. I'll hear all about how ohhhhh, it's nothing compared to the things blacks went through.

Kayleighjo

05-28-2009, 04:33 PM

Hi Kayleighjo. :) I love the way she pulled out her clairvoyant skills and made a lot of assumptions about what I do or think. I swear, the girl is amazing!

First she said she knew I didn't allow the word in my home because it's painful to those on the receiving end and then she says I refuse to acknowledge the pain the word causes. Huh? :confused:

What can I even say about the chick at this point? It's laughable.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 04:38 PM

GreenIce's entire post was directed at me. Am I the caucasian you're referring to here?

I was speaking of American Caucasians.

05-28-2009, 04:42 PM

I was speaking of American Caucasians.

I am an American, William. When you give that explanation for a post that was entirely about me it makes me think you're referring to me. If you are, that's okay, I'm used to it by now. :shrug:

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 04:44 PM

Uh, ok. Jesse Jackson not a civil rights leader? So because he's black he can say whatever the hell he wants to say and gets the "free pass, I'm black" card?

GreenIce made the specific statement that the N word does not belong in a screenplay. Period. She didn't say it doesn't belong in a screenplay by a member of LE.

And oh God, are we giving a free pass also to anybody who's had an ancestor that was a victim of stereotype? Never mind the fact that I myself was the constant victim of stereotype from blacks with my blonde hair and blue eyes when I was with my black man. I was jumped by 5 black chicks in the parking lot of my workplace who told me that I was no good like "every other blonde b*tch in the world".

Undoubtedly both you and GreenIce will trivialize that though. I'll hear all about how ohhhhh, it's nothing compared to the things blacks went through.

I did not say that any Black that uses the word should get a free pass. I am saying that I do not have the right to tell other Blacks how they should feel but I will tell them how I feel.

As I said, GreenIce hopefully will clarify her statements.

What you suffered was violence. The word originated from America's chattel system of slavery, according to my understanding. Therefore, it is not the same treatment, although violence was a part of the treatment and you would have had some recourse, if you chose to pursue it, whereas, Black slaves who were the victim of such violence had no recourse, because they were not considered human but were considered the N word.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 04:46 PM

I am an American, William. When you give that explanation for a post that was entirely about me it makes me think you're referring to me. If you are, that's okay, I'm used to it by now. :shrug:

I was speaking of Caucasians who tell Blacks how they should or should not feel in regard to hearing the N word and racial attitudes. I can only speak to my own feelings and I do not feel that Caucasians have or should ever have had that right.

05-28-2009, 04:47 PM

What can I even say about the chick at this point? It's laughable.

Yep, we might as well laugh because that's one gal that will never make sense.

05-28-2009, 04:49 PM

I was speaking of Caucasians who tell Blacks how they should or should not feel in regard to hearing the N word and racial attitudes. I can only speak to my own feelings and I do not feel that Caucasians have or should ever have had that right.

How did you get that out of the nasty post that GreenIce made about me?

weezer

05-28-2009, 04:50 PM

This has what to do with a member of LE denying, under oath, that he used the N word or the fact that he admitted to planting/fabricating/evidence or harassing interracial couples, which that type of couple he found disgusting, according to the evidence?

shame on you for the lie william. . . .

Truth: Mark Fuhrman was charged and convicted over the (or not) use of the n-word in the ten years before orenthal butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

Lie: or the fact that he admitted to planting/fabricating/evidence or harassing interracial couples, which that type of couple he found disgusting,

weezer

05-28-2009, 04:55 PM

How did you get that out of the nasty post that GreenIce made about me?

because william only sees in black and white -- imo

05-28-2009, 04:59 PM

because william only sees in black and white -- imo

Oh well, I'll just let it go...it's the same old same old...:rolleyes:

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 05:03 PM

How did you get that out of the nasty post that GreenIce made about me?

That's how I understood the post.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 05:05 PM

Oh well, I'll just let it go...it's the same old same old...:rolleyes:

Unless the text is in color, that's how I see them. Do you see them in red?:)

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 05:06 PM

Lie, "MF did not admit to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating."

martin II

05-28-2009, 05:12 PM

How did you get that out of the nasty post that GreenIce made about me?

Do you believe mf using the n work was ok because he said he was using it in a play. have you spoken out against him for using it even in a play?

weezer

05-28-2009, 05:16 PM

Lie, "MF did not admit to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating."

no william -- you're letting your hatred get in the way of all sense. Fuhrman was never charged nor was he ever found guilty of planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence.

05-28-2009, 05:43 PM

Do you believe mf using the n work was ok because he said he was using it in a play. have you spoken out against him for using it even in a play?

I've stated several times on this forum what I think of the language that Mark Fuhrman used in the McKinney tapes. I'm not going to repeat it every time you bring it up.

05-28-2009, 05:44 PM

no william -- you're letting your hatred get in the way of all sense. Fuhrman was never charged nor was he ever found guilty of planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence.

Hey, weezer, notice that the discussion is right back on race. Forget poor Ron and Nicole were butchered like animals...it's all about hurt feelings.

martin II

05-28-2009, 06:12 PM

Hey, weezer, notice that the discussion is right back on race. Forget poor Ron and Nicole were butchered like animals...it's all about hurt feelings.

Are you speaking about blacks having "hurt feelings" when called N
or something else?

05-28-2009, 06:37 PM

Are you speaking about blacks having "hurt feelings" when called N
or something else?

Go throw a guilt trip on someone else. I'm not falling for it anymore.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 06:43 PM

The only thing I have said is that MF admitted to it, ;).

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 06:47 PM

Hey, weezer, notice that the discussion is right back on race. Forget poor Ron and Nicole were butchered like animals...it's all about hurt feelings.

Are we still not discussing the N word and what are the effects upon different people and how MF used the word in context with the other evidence of his racial animus toward Blacks and how the use of the N word may be viewed differently by different people and how the difference relates to the verdict? Was that not your purpose in mentioning Reverend Wright and others and their statements?

05-28-2009, 06:52 PM

Are we still not discussing the N word and what are the effects upon different people and how MF used the word in context with the other evidence of his racial animus toward Blacks and how the use of the N word may be viewed differently by different people and how the difference relates to the verdict? Was that not your purpose in mentioning Reverend Wright and others and their statements?

That conversation was several days ago. You might be discussing it but I'm not. :seeya:

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 06:57 PM

That conversation was several days ago. You might be discussing it but I'm not. :seeya:

You mean even though you started and another poster continued it and you engaged in that continuance you are no longer continuing it and want to say that the discussion somehow turned to race, correct? ;) :seeya:

05-28-2009, 07:00 PM

You mean even though you started and another poster continued it and you engaged in that continuance you are no longer continuing it and want to say that the discussion somehow turned to race, correct? ;) :seeya:

I didn't start the race discussion. I mentioned Wright in the middle of a discussion that was already started. You need to read back a little more. That was the day that you and martin hammered me all day about race. That was Sunday --it's now Thursday.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 07:07 PM

I didn't start the race discussion. I mentioned Wright in the middle of a discussion that was already started. You need to read back a little more. That was the day that you and martin hammered me all day about race. That was Sunday --it's now Thursday.

Did some quick research and it was your post, stating that the Blacks segregated themselves from the White jurors that started the latest discussion. :)

martin II

05-28-2009, 07:18 PM

Did some quick research and it was your post, stating that the Blacks segregated themselves from the White jurors that started the latest discussion. :)

You are absolutely correct.We know who started the discussion about race.

05-28-2009, 07:24 PM

Did some quick research and it was your post, stating that the Blacks segregated themselves from the White jurors that started the latest discussion. :)

I'm not going to argue with you -- if you want to blame all the race discussion on this board on me then go for it. :)

05-28-2009, 07:27 PM

You are absolutely correct.We know who started the discussion about race.

Yes, I'm the one on this forum obsessed with race. :)

martin II

05-28-2009, 07:34 PM

Did some quick research and it was your post, stating that the Blacks segregated themselves from the White jurors that started the latest discussion. :)

.That was followed by calling the four black civil rights leaders racist and then Wright.

William Anthony

05-28-2009, 07:36 PM

I'm not going to argue with you -- if you want to blame all the race discussion on this board on me then go for it. :)

Why not all. It just the ones you start you don't want to continue. :)

martin II

05-28-2009, 07:37 PM

Yes, I'm the one on this forum obsessed with race. :)

You do admit that you started the discussion about race with your jury claim.

05-28-2009, 07:59 PM

You do admit that you started the discussion about race with your jury claim.

You're kidding me, right?

weezer

05-28-2009, 08:40 PM

The only thing I have said is that MF admitted to it, ;).

which is why I called your statement "william's lie"! ;)

weezer

05-28-2009, 08:41 PM

Hey, weezer, notice that the discussion is right back on race. Forget poor Ron and Nicole were butchered like animals...it's all about hurt feelings.

doesn't it always?

weezer

05-28-2009, 08:43 PM

You're kidding me, right?

boy oh boy -- these guys take on a pack mentality don't they?

05-28-2009, 08:48 PM

doesn't it always?

Always -- and now they're arguing about who started the race discussion. It looks like they've elected me...riiiiight.

weezer

05-28-2009, 08:55 PM

Always -- and now they're arguing about who started the race discussion. It looks like they've elected me...riiiiight.

LOL -- not something you should be worrying your little ole southern white head over. . . .;)

05-28-2009, 08:55 PM

boy oh boy -- these guys take on a pack mentality don't they?

Oh yeah. I get amused when they think they have us cornered -- you can almost smell the anticipation.

05-28-2009, 08:59 PM

LOL -- not something you should be worrying your little ole southern white head over. . . .;)

LOL...I don't know why they're trying to shift the blame. I thought they liked talking about race. :shrug:

GreenIce

05-28-2009, 11:53 PM

GreenIce, just because every blood stain on the glove was not tested at the same time does not mean the blood that was later tested was not on the glove when the glove was found. The results of the first blood tests were given to Clark on June 16, 1994, four days after the murders. That blood was found to be a mixture of both victims and Simpson’s blood. Other tests were later conducted on additional blood stains found on the glove including the spot inside the wrist notch that was found to be Simpson’s blood,

IIRC Detective Lange never testified to seeing blood inside the Bronco because he left Rockingham and returned to Bundy to handle that crime scene just after the glove was found, before it was light outside.

Of course no one saw the blood stains that were later found on August 26 since they only became visible after SID crime technicians removed the passenger seat and conducted further testing using the substance Luminol that makes blood glow in the dark. An SID criminalist collected the additional blood evidence, not Fung.

Detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman as well as Patrol Officers Thompson, Gonzalez and Aston all testified to seeing blood inside the Bronco before the Bronco was towed from Rockingham. You say the defense had 10 times the amount of witnesses than the DA’s regarding this issue. So tell us please what 50 witnesses testified for the defense that they didn’t see blood in the Bronco before photographs were taken and Fung collected stains on June 14.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

It makes no sense that Matheson only tested the "big" blood stains and not the "little" blood stains. As you posted, he had no idea who's blood it was. Also, the blood drop that was Simpson's on the inside of the glove was not seen even after the lining was taken out. So now we have missed blood on the glove that goes with missed blood in the Bronco, the socks and the back gate. Sorry, this is another lame explaintion that is just impossible to believe, IMO.

Three people testified that they did not see blood where later it was "found" in the Bronco. The three people who testified to this would lie about not seeing blood because.......? The Bronco was never locked, at least one of the civilians looked at the inside of the Bronco twice and never saw blood. The Bronco was moved a few times, yet the DA's never called a witness from the towing companies or other civilians who looked into the Bronco and saw this blood?

Any testimony by the LAPD on this issue means nothing. There were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. I don't remember posting that Lange testified about seeing blood in the Bronco, if I did post that, then I am sorry.

I thought it was Fung who was sent back to the Bronco? If it wasn't Fung, perhaps it was Michelle Kestler. However, the fact is, the Bronco was unlocked and no log was kept and many people did look inside the Bronco and did not see blood where it was later found.

fgump2

05-28-2009, 11:54 PM

William,

In Clark's book, she says that Kato would never ever say that he thought someone was back there. That when she asked him what he thought made the noise he wouldn't give a direct answer. When she asked him what he was looking for when he went out with the flashlight, he responded that he didn't know what he was looking for.

She then says that Kato never described the thumps he heard as someone crashing into the wall. Needless to say she was more then a tad upset with Kato. I always thought that she declared him as a hostile witness to try to send a message the jury that he was nothing but a freeloader and was protecting his meal ticket. I also felt that was not a smart move on her part.

IMO, Clark did not want these details, because if she did, she would have had Kato go back into the guest house as well as behind the wall and give a demonstration of where he heard the thumps. IMO, again.

I think you are making something out of nothing. It is difficult to make a distinction between a crashing noise that could have been a person crashing against a wall, and one which wasn't. Most people don't have much practice at making that distinction.

I also don't think the part about the picture moving is important. Kato could have imagined it, or the picture could have been in a precarious position. Maybe there was a small piece of dirt between the picture and the wall and the killer (Simpson) crashing into the wall dislodged the piece of dirt. That would be very hard to reproduce.

To cite a previous point I brought up twice, about blood in the bronco, the defense did state or imply that Fuhrman put blood in the bronco on the morning after the killings. On March 15 Mr. Bailey said this in court while questioning MF: FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO

And on Sept 28 in his summation speech Cochran said: "You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12?

This means that the defense was coming up with two contradictory stories of how the blood got in the Bronco: By Fuhrman the morning after the killings, and by unknowns weeks later. Seems pretty silly to me.

The blood on the bronco floor which was probably a footprint, is hard to explain, unless we assume that Mr. Simpson put it there. Cochran's explanation doesn't make much sense. Some of the criminologists said that nobody but the killer stepped in the blood, and no criminologists contradicted this; so it is hard to see how it could have been Fuhrman.

I realize that some people still write about the possibility of a second killer and unexplained foot prints at the BUndy crime scene. I don't think there is anything to this. I think all the talk about unexplained foot prints came from Henry Lee, and after the FBI foot print expert harshly criticized Henry Lee's footprint analysis, Henry Lee refused to talk about it any more. Hurt feelings I guess. I think we should be able to agree that there were no unexplained bloody footprints at the Bundy scene. So the defense had no reasonable explanation for the probable footprint in the Bronco.

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 12:03 AM

You are absolutely correct.We know who started the discussion about race.

Martin,

IIRC, it was the jurors who were kicked off the jury made comments about racial tensions on the jury as well as some comments about the guards. Then didn't Judge Ito take those guards out and put new ones in and the jury revolted because of this?

I don't remember the one white juror ever saying that there were racial tensions between the jurors or that she was forced to vote not guilty.

IMO, judging from the news reports about the white juror's facial reactions to the Fuhrman tapes and Natalie Singer's testimony, I can see where she may have felt uncomfortable but bullied, I don't think so. IMO.

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo

GreenIce made the specific statement that the N word does not belong in a screenplay. Period. She didn't say it doesn't belong in a screenplay by a member of LE.

William and Martin,

I am pretty sure that I never made the above statement. I have no idea where this came from.

What truly bothers me about some of the G's on this board is they are focusing on the n-word. What is the difference between MF saying the only good African-American is dead one vs the only good n-word is a dead one? I have no answer to that question, do you?

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 12:22 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9193780]
As I said, GreenIce hopefully will clarify her statements.

William,

I am lost here, what statement did I make? What do I need to clarify?

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo
It has everything to do with responding to that stupid post. If that chick wants to wax on about how she KNOWS how someone else is feeling or how the N word is SO insulting and should not be tolerated by anyone under any circumstance then she better be prepared to fess up on her own actions regarding it.

She wants to talk about how the word shouldn't be a part of the screenplay I wanna know if she's ever watched a movie with that word and if so did she stop watching immediately. She wants to talk about people who haven't denounced Fuhrman then I wanna know if she's denounced Jesse Jackson. I also wanna know what she calls those people who haven't denounced Jesse Jackson.

What post are you talking about? I have no clue.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:23 AM

The only thing that is a lie is to say that MF did not admit to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence or that he was not concerned about the statute of limitations.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:26 AM

Trying to correct the record is not a pack mentality. When asked a question a poster should either admit or deny and neither the poster's friend nor the poster should make personal attacks against other posters, IMHO.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:28 AM

Oh yeah. I get amused when they think they have us cornered -- you can almost smell the anticipation.

What us are you talking about being cornered, white headed southern lady? There was not two posters, who made the comment about the Black jurors segregating themselves, IIRC.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:30 AM

LOL...I don't know why they're trying to shift the blame. I thought they liked talking about race. :shrug:

I enjoy an open and honest discussion of race but not those that make snide remarks or remarks that could be seen as snide and then don't want to discuss them.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:35 AM

I think you are making something out of nothing. It is difficult to make a distinction between a crashing noise that could have been a person crashing against a wall, and one which wasn't. Most people don't have much practice at making that distinction.

I also don't think the part about the picture moving is important. Kato could have imagined it, or the picture could have been in a precarious position. Maybe there was a small piece of dirt between the picture and the wall and the killer (Simpson) crashing into the wall dislodged the piece of dirt. That would be very hard to reproduce.

To cite a previous point I brought up twice, about blood in the bronco, the defense did state or imply that Fuhrman put blood in the bronco on the morning after the killings. On March 15 Mr. Bailey said this in court while questioning MF: FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO

And on Sept 28 in his summation speech Cochran said: "You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12?

This means that the defense was coming up with two contradictory stories of how the blood got in the Bronco: By Fuhrman the morning after the killings, and by unknowns weeks later. Seems pretty silly to me.

The blood on the bronco floor which was probably a footprint, is hard to explain, unless we assume that Mr. Simpson put it there. Cochran's explanation doesn't make much sense. Some of the criminologists said that nobody but the killer stepped in the blood, and no criminologists contradicted this; so it is hard to see how it could have been Fuhrman.

I realize that some people still write about the possibility of a second killer and unexplained foot prints at the BUndy crime scene. I don't think there is anything to this. I think all the talk about unexplained foot prints came from Henry Lee, and after the FBI foot print expert harshly criticized Henry Lee's footprint analysis, Henry Lee refused to talk about it any more. Hurt feelings I guess. I think we should be able to agree that there were no unexplained bloody footprints at the Bundy scene. So the defense had no reasonable explanation for the probable footprint in the Bronco.

The key word in your post to me is probable. It was just as probable that it was not a footprint. It was not the defense who planted the idea that the blood in the Bronco was planted by MF. It was MF, when he testified to seeing blood in the Bronco at a time he could not have seen blood in the Bronco, unless he was in the Bronco.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:37 AM

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:40 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9193780]
As I said, GreenIce hopefully will clarify her statements.

William,

I am lost here, what statement did I make? What do I need to clarify?

There are none that you need to clarify. I took your post to mean that Whites do not have the right to negate Blacks' feelings. Others have taken it as something else. I was hoping that you would clarify whether I was right or wrong in my interpretation of your post, that's all. :)

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 03:57 AM

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 06:32 AM

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9193963]

There are none that you need to clarify. I took your post to mean that Whites do not have the right to negate Blacks' feelings. Others have taken it as something else. I was hoping that you would clarify whether I was right or wrong in my interpretation of your post, that's all. :)

William,

I am sure the G's will find the post and confront me with my own words, or they will realize that is not what I posted.

However, I did make a post that you have correctly interpreted.

GreenIce

05-29-2009, 06:41 AM

GreenIce,

I think the post has been deleted. In that regard, I don't think that there is anything that is the subject of clarification and the rest of us need to drop the subject as the post was dropped.

William,

I think I know what post they are talking about and they are twisting and turning it. I never would have posted that. It is getting rather silly the constant misrepresentation of posts. I do understand that typos can play a role in this but not on this, IMO.

martin II

05-29-2009, 08:35 AM

I think you are making something out of nothing. It is difficult to make a distinction between a crashing noise that could have been a person crashing against a wall, and one which wasn't. Most people don't have much practice at making that distinction.

I also don't think the part about the picture moving is important. Kato could have imagined it, or the picture could have been in a precarious position. Maybe there was a small piece of dirt between the picture and the wall and the killer (Simpson) crashing into the wall dislodged the piece of dirt. That would be very hard to reproduce.

To cite a previous point I brought up twice, about blood in the bronco, the defense did state or imply that Fuhrman put blood in the bronco on the morning after the killings. On March 15 Mr. Bailey said this in court while questioning MF: FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO

And on Sept 28 in his summation speech Cochran said: "You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12?

This means that the defense was coming up with two contradictory stories of how the blood got in the Bronco: By Fuhrman the morning after the killings, and by unknowns weeks later. Seems pretty silly to me.

The blood on the bronco floor which was probably a footprint,it was a smudge as if wipped with a cloth see the picture.proberly is not fact. is hard to explain, unless we assume that Mr. Simpson put it there. Cochran's explanation doesn't make much sense. Some of the criminologists said that nobody but the killer stepped in the blood,what would you expect them to say and no criminologists contradicted this; so it is hard to see how it could have been Fuhrman.

I realize that some people still write about the possibility of a second killer and unexplained foot prints at the BUndy crime scene. I don't think there is anything to this.can you explain the wipped smudges at bundy? I think all the talk about unexplained foot prints came from Henry Lee, and after the FBI foot print expert harshly criticized Henry Lee's footprint analysis, Henry Lee refused to talk about it any more. Hurt feelings I guess. I think we should be able to agree that there were no unexplained bloody footprints at the Bundy scene. So the defense had no reasonable explanation for the probable footprint in the Bronco.there were no foot prints from inside the back gate on the ground to any car,then a bloody smudge inside the bronco carpet.can you explain?

blood where there should be no blood and no blood where should be blood.

martin II

05-29-2009, 08:38 AM

William,

I think I know what post they are talking about and they are twisting and turning it. I never would have posted that. It is getting rather silly the constant misrepresentation of posts. I do understand that typos can play a role in this but not on this, IMO.

recently your post was twisted and misrepresented big time so i would not worry about it at all.Especially when all the gang joins is to twist.

05-29-2009, 08:44 AM

recently your post was twisted and misrepresented big time so i would not worry about it at all.Especially when all the gang joins is to twist.

I'll help you guys out. Here's the post which I found quoted --

Originally Posted by GreenIce
"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."

05-29-2009, 08:48 AM

What us are you talking about being cornered, white headed southern lady? There was not two posters, who made the comment about the Black jurors segregating themselves, IIRC.
Don't worry your black head about it.

weezer

05-29-2009, 08:56 AM

The only thing that is a lie is to say that MF did not admit to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence or that he was not concerned about the statute of limitations.

:no: :no: :no: your insistence that Fuhrman 'admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence' is a lie -- no other way to say it.

05-29-2009, 09:04 AM

:no: :no: :no: your insistence that Fuhrman 'admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence' is a lie -- no other way to say it.

Maybe William would be kind enough to post Mark Fuhrman's testimony where he admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:20 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9194002]

William,

I am sure the G's will find the post and confront me with my own words, or they will realize that is not what I posted.

However, I did make a post that you have correctly interpreted.

Thank you as that is what I took that post to mean.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:21 AM

William,

I think I know what post they are talking about and they are twisting and turning it. I never would have posted that. It is getting rather silly the constant misrepresentation of posts. I do understand that typos can play a role in this but not on this, IMO.

I did not know, which post they were speaking of, but I can not remember a post where you said the N word should not have been used in a screen play.

05-29-2009, 09:23 AM

I did not know, which post they were speaking of, but I can not remember a post where you said the N word should not have been used in a screen play.

"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."

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:24 AM

I'll help you guys out. Here's the post which I found quoted --

Originally Posted by GreenIce
"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."

Are these the two sentences of which you speak?

"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."

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:26 AM

"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."

William, how can you say you don't know which post? You went on and on yesterday explaining what she meant by it.

Obviously, I was speaking of the first post GreenIce made that upset you. You have now re-posted the post of which you speak.

05-29-2009, 09:26 AM

Are these the two sentences of which you speak?

"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."

You catch on quick.

05-29-2009, 09:28 AM

Obviously, I was speaking of the first post GreenIce made that upset you. You have now re-posted the post of which you speak.

I reposted it so you and she couldn't wiggle out of the comments you made and the denial that she made. Her irresponsible diatribes should be an embarrassment to her but I don't think either one of you get that.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:29 AM

"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."

I still do not see where she said it should not be used, as opposed to the fact that you should have denounced its use in the screen play, because, if you felt so strongly about its use, then it was not excusable when used in a screen play, which is the way I interpret it.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:30 AM

You catch on quick.

Thanks, as I try to read with comprehension.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:31 AM

Maybe William would be kind enough to post Mark Fuhrman's testimony where he admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence.

I have never stated the MF testified to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:32 AM

I reposted it so you and she couldn't wiggle out of the comments you made and the denial that she made. Her irresponsible diatribes should be an embarrassment to her but I don't think either one of you get that.

There is nothing to wriggle out of.

05-29-2009, 09:32 AM

I still do not see where she said it should not be used, as opposed to the fact that you should have denounced its use in the screen play, because, if you felt so strongly about its use, then it was not excusable when used in a screen play, which is the way I interpret it.

I take it you've stopped viewing any movies or reading any books that contain offensive language. How do the producers and authors react when you write them to protest?

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:34 AM

I take it you've stopped viewing any movies or reading any books that contain offensive language. How do the producers and authors react when you write them to protest?

This is not about what I do or don't do. It is about what GreenIce said in her post and how it was interpreted.

05-29-2009, 09:37 AM

This is not about what I do or don't do. It is about what GreenIce said in her post and how it was interpreted.

Wiggle, wiggle.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 09:42 AM

Wiggle, wiggle.

No need to wiggle, only to remind you of what the discussion was. It was about the fact that Caucasians don't allow the use of the N word in their home, because they know how harmful the word is, but can defend its use or say that it is irrelevant, when MF violated his oath to tell the truth, about using the N word and how they can turn to an alleged use of the N word in a lawyer's office as if that is some how equal to someone lying under oath about its use and a questioning of that seeming discrepancy as I interpret those sentences.

05-29-2009, 09:45 AM

No need to wiggle, only to remind you of what the discussion was. It was about the fact that Caucasians don't allow the use of the N word in their home, because they know how harmful the word is, but can defend its use or say that it is irrelevant, when MF violated his oath to tell the truth, about using the N word and how they can turn to an alleged use of the N word in a lawyer's office as if that is some how equal to someone lying under oath about its use and a questioning of that seeming discrepancy as I interpret those sentences.

The caucasian you keep referring to from GreenIce's post is me and I'm going to request right now that you drop the subject. I'm tired of being the subject of speculation by people that know nothing about me. Please don't come back and say I reposted the post so that means I want to talk about it. I did that so neither one of you could continue to play dumb. Let's talk about OJ Simpson and the murder of two innocent people.

martin II

05-29-2009, 09:48 AM

I take it you've stopped viewing any movies or reading any books that contain offensive language. How do the producers and authors react when you write them to protest?

this is a silly argument you try to make. very silly.

05-29-2009, 09:50 AM

this is a silly argument you try to make. very silly.

I'm supposed to protest language in a screenplay that was recorded in private and would never have seen the light of day if it hadn't been brought out in the trial and my question is silly? You guys never fail to make me laugh.

martin II

05-29-2009, 09:59 AM

The caucasian you keep referring to from GreenIce's post is me and I'm going to request right now that you drop the subject. I'm tired of being the subject of speculation by people that know nothing about me. Please don't come back and say I reposted the post so that means I want to talk about it. I did that so neither one of you could continue to play dumb. Let's talk about OJ Simpson and the murder of two innocent people.

if the n word is not acceptable in your home then why does m furhman the person that used it deserves your regular support?

When he used it to bell and singer why do you attack them? they didn't use it.

05-29-2009, 10:15 AM

if the n word is not acceptable in your home then why does m furhman the person that used it deserves your regular support?

When he used it to bell and singer why do you attack them? they didn't use it.

I told you yesterday that I've stated my position on Mark Fuhrman's language and I'm not going to repeat it like a trained monkey every time you try to throw the guilt trip on me. Try it on someone else because it's not working with me any longer. I have never 'attacked' Bell and Singer. I think you're starting to believe your own fantasies.

Why don't you question what OJ Simpson meant when he said "I'm not black I'm OJ"?

martin II

05-29-2009, 10:16 AM

I'm supposed to protest language in a screenplay that was recorded in private and would never have seen the light of day if it hadn't been brought out in the trial and my question is silly? You guys never fail to make me laugh.

based on your post you protest the word being used anytime so why your support for mf when he used it. is my question.

screen play or private makes no differance. you are against it when ever it is used. right? or wrong?

05-29-2009, 10:20 AM

based on your post you protest the word being used anytime so why your support for mf when he used it. is my question.

screen play or private makes no differance. you are against it when ever it is used. right? or wrong?

If you didn't pay attention to what I've said about this before it's not my problem.

martin II

05-29-2009, 10:22 AM

I told you yesterday that I've stated my position on Mark Fuhrman's language and I'm not going to repeat it like a trained monkey every time you try to throw the guilt trip on me. Try it on someone else because it's not working with me any longer. I have never 'attacked' Bell and Singer. I think you're starting to believe your own fantasies.

Why don't you question what OJ Simpson meant when he said "I'm not black I'm OJ"?

what oj said has nothing to do with why you seem to not be against the use of the word anytime. if that is in fact your position.
i don't know what oj was trying to say when he made that statement. maby just running his mouth.
but if you are truly against that word then why not when mf used it in private and to bell and singer?

example
if the kkk made a promo video in private using that word you would state your opposition strongly.
So why not when mf made his screen play. there is no differance.

05-29-2009, 10:24 AM

what oj said has nothing to do with why you seem to not be against the use of the word anytime. if that is in fact your position.
i don't know what oj was trying to say when he made that statement. maby just running his mouth.
but if you are truly against that word then why not when mf used it in private and to bell and singer?

If you didn't pay attention to what I said about this in the past it's not my problem.

05-29-2009, 10:30 AM

what oj said has nothing to do with why you seem to not be against the use of the word anytime. if that is in fact your position.
i don't know what oj was trying to say when he made that statement. maby just running his mouth.
but if you are truly against that word then why not when mf used it in private and to bell and singer?

example
if the kkk made a promo video in private using that word you would state your opposition strongly.
So why not when mf made his screen play. there is no differance.

For the love of God, martin...do you ever let this rest?

martin II

05-29-2009, 10:31 AM

If you didn't pay attention to what I said about this in the past it's not my problem.

i cannot look at all your post
you can simply post it now.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 10:32 AM

The caucasian you keep referring to from GreenIce's post is me and I'm going to request right now that you drop the subject. I'm tired of being the subject of speculation by people that know nothing about me. Please don't come back and say I reposted the post so that means I want to talk about it. I did that so neither one of you could continue to play dumb. Let's talk about OJ Simpson and the murder of two innocent people.

I am not speaking of you, although you are a Caucasian, unless you are one of those Caucasians, who desire to negate Blacks' feelings, tell Blacks how the should or should not feel or are one that feels MF use of the N word in the context of how he used it is somehow equivalent to the use of the N word in the magnificent one's office.

05-29-2009, 10:35 AM

i cannot look at all your post
you can simply post it now.

No. I've given my opinion on this many times -- most recently a few days ago. This forum is about OJ Simpson being charged with murder and his subsequent trials. This focus on race at the exclusion of discussing the topic of the forum needs to stop.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 10:37 AM

No. I've given my opinion on this many times -- most recently a few days ago. This forum is about OJ Simpson being charged with murder and his subsequent trials. This focus on race at the exclusion of discussing the topic of the forum needs to stop.

Then why do you keep making racial comments in your posts?

05-29-2009, 10:38 AM

I am not speaking of you, although you are a Caucasian, unless you are one of those Caucasians, who desire to negate Blacks' feelings, tell Blacks how the should or should not feel or are one that feels MF use of the N word in the context of how he used it is somehow equivalent to the use of the N word in the magnificent one's office.

You jumped on your soapbox and told Kayleighjo what you thought GreenIce meant and since her post was only talking about me then how else do you explain what you said? I don't really expect an answer to this question that makes any sense but I just want you to know that I know who your comments were directed at. If you want to go back to yesterday's posts and start with Kayleighjo quoting GreenIce you'll see. If not, that's fine too. Now, can we get off of race and back on the case?

05-29-2009, 10:39 AM

Then why do you keep making racial comments in your posts?
:seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya: You might consider getting some help for your obsession with skin color.

William Anthony

05-29-2009, 10:44 AM

You jumped on your soapbox and told Kayleighjo what you thought GreenIce meant and since her post was only talking about me then how else do you explain what you said? I don't really expect an answer to this question that makes any sense but I just want you to know that I know who your comments were directed at. If you want to go back to yesterday's posts and start with Kayleighjo quoting GreenIce you'll see. If not, that's fine too. Now, can we get off of race and back on the case?

Kayleighjo jumped on your soap box and you thanked her. I simply stated that is not how I interpreted GreenIce's post. I simply was not limiting what GreenIce said in her post to you but I saw it as another way of saying what I said, which is that Caucasians, to include you, do not have the right to negate the feelings of Blacks or tell Blacks how they should feel.