Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

You're welcome! Judge Ito wanted to be on this case -- we all remember how much he loved the limelight!

Not as much as judge J. Glass, imho.

[martin II]

The hospital may write up, suspend, terminate or otherwise discipline. I'm not sure what you mean by being brought up on charges by the hospital but I'm not going to contribute to keeping this going. Believe what you want. :shrug:

The Nurse can be brought up on charges by the State Health Department or Education Department and they can revoke the Nurses lisense if they see fit to do so.

[weezer]

You're welcome! Judge Ito wanted to be on this case -- we all remember how much he loved the limelight!

LOL -- where's joseph and the dancing ito's -- :tongue:

[martin II]

I bet if we look, we can find where orenthal has been profiled -- in fact, I remember reading something about that. I'll keep looking but in the meantime. . .

"Dr. Susan Forward, Nicole's therapist: "She was battered incessantly, regularly, all the time. I'm not saying 24 hours a day, but the incidents of battering were extraordinarily high."
Source: Anne McDermott, CNN.com, "Nicole Simpson Profile", January 19, 1995.

Shelley Levitt: "There were, after all, many witnesses to the abuse in the Simpson marriage. Friends and family members say O.J. humiliated Nicole in bars and restaurants. Neighbors heard him screaming threats and obscenities. The Brown family saw photographs of her battered face following the infamous 1989 New Year's Day beating. The police, answering her 911 calls, saw a beaten and frightened Nicole and had no doubt that O.J. was her tormentor ... "One of the most amazing things to me when you study the Simpson case is that it appeared intervention failed at every level," says San Diego deputy city attorney Casey Gwinn, who runs that city's domestic violence unit. "Police didn't write reports when they went to the house. Simpson was not put in jail. Friends and family didn't confront him."
Source: People Weekly, "Facing the rage: it was no secret that Nicole Simpson was abused, yet nobody - friends, family or police - effectively came to her aid", February 20, 1995."

Many people wrote their opinions about Nicole and oj relationship.Some even for money but none were oj or Nicole. only they knew the truth. imo

[weezer]

And none of this states that Simpson would progress to murder but the eminent authority on the subject, Dr. Lenore Walker, said he did not fit the profile of a spousal abuser that would make the necessary progression.

william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- where's joseph and the dancing ito's -- :tongue:

I heard judge J. Glass got so envious she ripped them to shreds.:)

[weezer]

DR. LENORE WALKER, psychiatrist retained by Simpson defense: (RT) Spent 60 hours interviewing Simpson in jail; her notes suggested Simpson did retrieve Barbieri's "Dear John" message.

[William Anthony]

william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

[William Anthony]

DR. LENORE WALKER, psychiatrist retained by Simpson defense: (RT) Spent 60 hours interviewing Simpson in jail; her notes suggested Simpson did retrieve Barbieri's "Dear John" message.

Did the prosecution prove the contrary or did they prove that Simpson called her?

[weezer]

"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

LOL -- I guess her 'expertise' is up for questioning now, don't you? :eek:

[martin II]

And none of this states that Simpson would progress to murder but the eminent authority on the subject, Dr. Lenore Walker, said he did not fit the profile of a spousal abuser that would make the necessary progression.

Thanks for bringing truth to those runaway accusations.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I guess her 'expertise' is up for questioning now, don't you? :eek:

All expert's expertise is up for questioning, imho, which is why a foundation is laid before the expert can offer an opinion. I am unable to pull up her direct testimony but here is what was said during an argument in court about what she would say, if called to testify, by Professor and lawyer Dean Ulemen, who some Gs give credit.

"MR. UELMEN: WELL, ADDITIONAL TESTS WERE MADE AS WELL. AND AT THIS POINT, THE DEFENSE HAS NOT MADE A COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WE INTEND TO CALL DR. WALKER TO TESTIFY. AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT DR. WALKER MAY BE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY. NOT JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONALITY OF THE DEFENDANT OR THE ABSENCE OF PROFILE INDICATORS, BUT SIMPLY BASED ON HER RESEARCH AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE FIELD, THE LACK OF PREDICTABILITY OF HOMICIDES BASED ON A PRIOR HISTORY OF BATTERING. THE ONLY RELEVANCE THAT DR. WALKER'S TESTIMONY IS GOING TO HAVE IS TO REBUT THE INFERENCES THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO TRY TO DRAW FROM THE PRIOR ACTS IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO DRAW INFERENCES OF MOTIVE, IDENTITY AND COMMON SCHEME. AND UNTIL WE'VE HEARD THAT EVIDENCE AND UNTIL, FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING ANY EXPERTS, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT DR. WALKER MAY BE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY TO. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE NOT ONLY A RIGHT, BUT AN OBLIGATION NOT TO WAIVE ANY PRIVILEGE AND GIVE TO THE PROSECUTION MATERIAL THAT THEY MAY THEN IN TURN USE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF UNTIL WE KNOW PRECISELY WHAT POSITION THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AND WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO PRESENT ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THE PROTECTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE HAVE UNDER 1107 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT PRECLUDES THEM FROM PRESENTING THIS KIND OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. AND IF YOUR HONOR RULES THAT THEY CAN'T PUT THAT KIND OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON, THAT MAY IN TURN LEAD US TO A VERY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, OPENING STATEMENT NOTWITHSTANDING, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRECISE SCOPE OF DR. WALKER'S TESTIMONY. NOW, IF I COULD RETURN TO THE THREE CATEGORIES THAT I INDICATED AT THE OUTSET. I THINK WE CAN HONESTLY REPORT IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE DO NOT KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT WE WILL CALL MANY OF THE EXPERTS TO TESTIFY TO IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. MANY OF THEM WILL BE REBUTTING PROSECUTION EXPERTS. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PROSECUTION EXPERTS WILL BE CALLED, WHAT THEY WILL TESTIFY TO. IN FACT, MANY OF OUR EXPERTS ARE ON THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS LIST AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE FROM OUR EXPERTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO REBUT OR CROSS-EXAMINE THEM IF AND WHEN THEY ARE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION. THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT MADE ANY PROFFER. THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US WHAT THEY EXPECT TO CALL THESE WITNESSES FOR OR HOW THEY WILL LIMIT THEIR TESTIMONY. SO AT THIS POINT, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. WE'RE NOT IN ANY POSITION TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THE SCOPE OF OUR EXPERT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE."

[William Anthony]

Thanks for bringing truth to those runaway accusations.

You're welcome.

[weezer]

All expert's expertise is up for questioning, imho, which is why a foundation is laid before the expert can offer an opinion. I am unable to pull up her direct testimony but here is what was said during an argument in court about what she would say, if called to testify, by Professor and lawyer Dean Ulemen, who some Gs give credit.

"MR. UELMEN: WELL, ADDITIONAL TESTS WERE MADE AS WELL. AND AT THIS POINT, THE DEFENSE HAS NOT MADE A COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WE INTEND TO CALL DR. WALKER TO TESTIFY. AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT DR. WALKER MAY BE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY. NOT JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONALITY OF THE DEFENDANT OR THE ABSENCE OF PROFILE INDICATORS, BUT SIMPLY BASED ON HER RESEARCH AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE FIELD, THE LACK OF PREDICTABILITY OF HOMICIDES BASED ON A PRIOR HISTORY OF BATTERING. THE ONLY RELEVANCE THAT DR. WALKER'S TESTIMONY IS GOING TO HAVE IS TO REBUT THE INFERENCES THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO TRY TO DRAW FROM THE PRIOR ACTS IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO DRAW INFERENCES OF MOTIVE, IDENTITY AND COMMON SCHEME. AND UNTIL WE'VE HEARD THAT EVIDENCE AND UNTIL, FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING ANY EXPERTS, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT DR. WALKER MAY BE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY TO. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE NOT ONLY A RIGHT, BUT AN OBLIGATION NOT TO WAIVE ANY PRIVILEGE AND GIVE TO THE PROSECUTION MATERIAL THAT THEY MAY THEN IN TURN USE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF UNTIL WE KNOW PRECISELY WHAT POSITION THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AND WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO PRESENT ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIVE THE PROTECTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE HAVE UNDER 1107 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT PRECLUDES THEM FROM PRESENTING THIS KIND OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. AND IF YOUR HONOR RULES THAT THEY CAN'T PUT THAT KIND OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON, THAT MAY IN TURN LEAD US TO A VERY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, OPENING STATEMENT NOTWITHSTANDING, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRECISE SCOPE OF DR. WALKER'S TESTIMONY. NOW, IF I COULD RETURN TO THE THREE CATEGORIES THAT I INDICATED AT THE OUTSET. I THINK WE CAN HONESTLY REPORT IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE DO NOT KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT WE WILL CALL MANY OF THE EXPERTS TO TESTIFY TO IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. MANY OF THEM WILL BE REBUTTING PROSECUTION EXPERTS. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PROSECUTION EXPERTS WILL BE CALLED, WHAT THEY WILL TESTIFY TO. IN FACT, MANY OF OUR EXPERTS ARE ON THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS LIST AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE FROM OUR EXPERTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO REBUT OR CROSS-EXAMINE THEM IF AND WHEN THEY ARE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION. THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT MADE ANY PROFFER. THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US WHAT THEY EXPECT TO CALL THESE WITNESSES FOR OR HOW THEY WILL LIMIT THEIR TESTIMONY. SO AT THIS POINT, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. WE'RE NOT IN ANY POSITION TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THE SCOPE OF OUR EXPERT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE."

LOL -- you're offering a sidebar as proof of what? I simply wanted the link to
Walker's testimony --

[martin II]

william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

It has been posted and discussed here many times. i am surprised you are not aware of her statement. imo

[William Anthony]

I bet if we look, we can find where orenthal has been profiled -- in fact, I remember reading something about that. I'll keep looking but in the meantime. . .

"Dr. Susan Forward, Nicole's therapist: "She was battered incessantly, regularly, all the time. I'm not saying 24 hours a day, but the incidents of battering were extraordinarily high."
Source: Anne McDermott, CNN.com, "Nicole Simpson Profile", January 19, 1995.

Shelley Levitt: "There were, after all, many witnesses to the abuse in the Simpson marriage. Friends and family members say O.J. humiliated Nicole in bars and restaurants. Neighbors heard him screaming threats and obscenities. The Brown family saw photographs of her battered face following the infamous 1989 New Year's Day beating. The police, answering her 911 calls, saw a beaten and frightened Nicole and had no doubt that O.J. was her tormentor ... "One of the most amazing things to me when you study the Simpson case is that it appeared intervention failed at every level," says San Diego deputy city attorney Casey Gwinn, who runs that city's domestic violence unit. "Police didn't write reports when they went to the house. Simpson was not put in jail. Friends and family didn't confront him."
Source: People Weekly, "Facing the rage: it was no secret that Nicole Simpson was abused, yet nobody - friends, family or police - effectively came to her aid", February 20, 1995."

So, which of these people actually interviewed Simpson and, therefore had the expertise to offer an opinion about his personality? Can we question their opinion?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- you're offering a sidebar as proof of what? I simply wanted the link to
Walker's testimony --

Certainly, you aren't suggesting that Dean Ulemen, as an officer of the court, misrepresented what her testimony would be, if called, and, if I were you, I would be very careful here with my response.

[weezer]

So, which of these people actually interviewed Simpson and, therefore had the expertise to offer an opinion about his personality? Can we question their opinion?

oh I don't think we need to question them -- orenthal's life since then pretty much proves their point don't you think?

[weezer]

Certainly, you aren't suggesting that Dean Ulemen, as an officer of the court, misrepresented what her testimony would be, if called, and, if I were you, I would be very careful here with my response.

the fact is, the defense was afraid to call her --

and, he wouldn't be the only member of that defense team to lie to the court now would he?

[William Anthony]

oh I don't think we need to question them -- orenthal's life since then pretty much proves their point don't you think?

I think you may not know enough about anti-social personality disorder, because it displays itself in the teenage years and there is no showing that Simpson had any problems in those years. I am not an expert but a quick research allowed me to discern that. While it may be true that some with the disorder got by in their teenage years, it is far too great a leap in law or logic for either you or I to make (I would have said for me to make but you might have thought I meant we, :)).

[William Anthony]

the fact is, the defense was afraid to call her --

and, he wouldn't be the only member of that defense team to lie to the court now would he?

The fact is that the defense had no need to call her. What expert of the prosecution would she have been called to rebut?

I would say that might be true if he worked for LE and the prosecution, who were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth.

[weezer]

I think you may not know enough about anti-social personality disorder, because it displays itself in the teenage years and there is no showing that Simpson had any problems in those years. I am not an expert but a quick research allowed me to discern that. While it may be true that some with the disorder got by in their teenage years, it is far too great a leap for either you or I to make (I would have said for me to make but you might have thought I meant we, :)).

hmmm -- so you didn't know that orenthal was a hoodlum in his youth?

[weezer]

The fact is that the defense had no need to call her. What expert of the prosecution would she have been called to rebut?

I would say that might be true if he worked for LE and the prosecution, who were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth.

or maybe they didn't call her because as Mr. Uellman said: ". . .NOT TO WAIVE ANY PRIVILEGE AND GIVE TO THE PROSECUTION MATERIAL THAT THEY MAY THEN IN TURN USE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. . ."

I say they were :chicken:

[weezer]

The fact is that the defense had no need to call her. What expert of the prosecution would she have been called to rebut?

I would say that might be true if he worked for LE and the prosecution, who were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth.

now, now william -- you are being dishonest again. neither the prosecution nor LE were admonished for that. however, I do remember the defense team being sanctioned for their dishonesty. ;)

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- so you didn't know that orenthal was a hoodlum in his youth?

Although I hate to use this source, this is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

Link please, to him being a hoodlum in his youth. I know Darden said he was in his book. Are you getting the two confused?

[weezer]

Although I hate to use this source, this is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

Link please, to him being a hoodlum in his youth. I know Darden said he was in his book. Are you getting the two confused?

nope -- no confusion on my part -- he was a thug then and he's a thug now.

did you find the link to Walker's testimony?

[William Anthony]

now, now william -- you are being dishonest again. neither the prosecution nor LE were admonished for that. however, I do remember the defense team being sanctioned for their dishonesty. ;)

I am really growing tired of your accusation about my dishonesty. Perhaps, you do not remember the judge's remarks about Vanatter's statements in the affidavit in regard to the search warrant.

[William Anthony]

nope -- no confusion on my part -- he was a thug then and he's a thug now.

did you find the link to Walker's testimony?

Did you find the link to the pigeon-toed shoe prints? I provided you with an officer of the court's representation to what her testimony would be if she were called and I provided you with the link. There was another link requested of you more recently which you have not provided.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E2D6163AF931A1575AC0A9629582 60&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS% 2FSearch%20and%20Seizure

[weezer]

I am really growing tired of your accusation about my dishonesty. Perhaps, you do not remember the judge's remarks about Vanatter's statements in the affidavit in regard to the search warrant.

I'm just calling it like I see it. your statement that the prosecution and LE "were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth" and I said you are being dishonest in stating that.

[weezer]

Did you find the link to the pigeon-toed shoe prints? I provided you with an officer of the court's representation to what her testimony would be if she were called and I provided you with the link. There was another link requested of you more recently which you have not provided.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E2D6163AF931A1575AC0A9629582 60&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS% 2FSearch%20and%20Seizure

Lenore Walker did not testify because the defense was afraid of what she would say. you stated as fact that she testified and even quoted her. Now would be a good time to suck it up and say you were wrong.

[William Anthony]

I'm just calling it like I see it. your statement that the prosecution and LE "were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth" and I said you are being dishonest in stating that.

We have had that discussion previously and I have shown that LE works for the prosecution and you would be dishonest not to admit that.

[weezer]

We have had that discussion previously and I have shown that LE works for the prosecution and you would be dishonest not to admit that.

but that wasn't what you were saying, now is it?

[William Anthony]

Lenore Walker did not testify because the defense was afraid of what she would say. you stated as fact that she testified and even quoted her. Now would be a good time to suck it up and say you were wrong.

I think you need to go back and read my posts, before you make the dishonest statement that I said she testified. My post said she said and it was her opinion. You used the word testify and I told you I was unable to pull up her testimony. In regard to the other matter, the search engine does not work and for closed threads but if you will type in sanctions it will show you that we had the discussions about the prosecution's sanctions on the other thread and I distinctly remember the conversation with another poster about the prosecution and LE being separate and I provided the link, showing they were a part of the prosecution.

[martin II]

the fact is, the defense was afraid to call her --

and, he wouldn't be the only member of that defense team to lie to the court now would he?

Dr Walkers statement about oj was contained in a deopsition she gave. Her notes were discussed in the civil trial but the plantiff was successful in preventing the contents of the notes from being read. I am still looking to see if i can find it but i am sure it was made as reported.

[William Anthony]

but that wasn't what you were saying, now is it?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying-when LE was admonished during the trial after the prosecution decided to prosecute that admonishment fell to both of them. I used the word and because I did not want to confuse you by saying they, in fear that you would have thought I meant only one of them.:)

[weezer]

I think you need to go back and read my posts, before you make the dishonest statement that I said she testified. My post said she said and it was her opinion. You used the word testify and I told you I was unable to pull up her testimony. In regard to the other matter, the search engine does not work and for closed threads but if you will type in sanctions it will show you that we had the discussions about the prosecution's sanctions on the other thread and I distinctly remember the conversation with another poster about the prosecution and LE being separate and I provided the link, showing they were a part of the prosecution.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

---------------------
"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html
__________________
Doc Holiday

[weezer]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying-when LE was admonished during the trial after the prosecution decided to prosecute that admonishment fell to both of them. I used the word and because I did not want to confuse you by saying they, in fear that you would have thought I meant only one of them.:)

tsk, tsk, tsk --

[martin II]

Lenore Walker did not testify because the defense was afraid of what she would say. you stated as fact that she testified and even quoted her. Now would be a good time to suck it up and say you were wrong.

who said she testified? She gave a deposition, civil trial, and her notes were discussed.

[martin II]

Lenore Walker did not testify because the defense was afraid of what she would say. you stated as fact that she testified and even quoted her. Now would be a good time to suck it up and say you were wrong.

Please correct your post William did not say she testified.

[martin II]

"requiring pretrial disclosure of the raw results of standardized psychological and intelligence tests administered and relied upon by an expert the defense intends to call at trial allows access to information necessary to prepare the case, reduces the chance of surprise at trial, furthers the attainment of truth and lessens the risk of a judgment based on incomplete testimony. In short, it advances the statutory goals," closed quote. And in opening statement in this case, mr. Cochran did tell the jury that dr. Walker would testify. And i'll quote here: "and you will hear ultimately about the battery of tests and i think you will find that she will say that in looking at o.j. Simpson and interviewing him, in looking at him at this point, she finds no evidence of anti-social personality disorder and i think you will find that becomes very important in this case."

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

---------------------
"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html
__________________
Doc Holiday

That is a quote from the link, because you used the word testimony in your request. I said she said and it was her opinion. So, I do not understand your point.

[weezer]

That is a quote from the link, because you used the word testimony in your request. I said she said and it was her opinion. So, I do not understand your point.

you posted this:

"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
william, can you give me a link to Dr. Walker's testimony where she made that statement?

---------------------
"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html
__________________
Doc Holiday


Now that is the truth. She made both statements in her book.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm just calling it like I see it. your statement that the prosecution and LE "were admonished for having a reckless disregard for the truth" and I said you are being dishonest in stating that.

I would also like to take this opportunity to, once again, point out that Johnnie Cochran was also admonished, and fined, by Judge Ito for having "a reckless disregard for the truth".

It interests me that it is only regarding LE or the prosecution when "reckless disregard for the truth" is brought up, with no interest in noting that Johnnie Cochran was deemed as having the same.

Kate

[William Anthony]

you posted this:

"Lenore Walker, "battered woman syndrome" expert

Doctor who wrote book defining "battered woman's syndrome." Walker testified she interviewed Simpson and believed he "did not suffer from any kind of anti-social personality disorder."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

Yes and that is from the link. The quotation marks were there. You wanted a link and you used the word testimony. Where is the link that Simpson was a hoodlum in his youth and the one that pigeon-toes shoe prints were found at Bundy?

[martin II]

LOL -- I guess her 'expertise' is up for questioning now, don't you? :eek:

In Dr Walkers book she said Oj simpson did not fit the profile of a abuser that he showed no antisocial behavior in her 60 hours examination of him.
That is more than any person that wrote opinions that were not even a professional and never examined him.

So that should finish the accusations about him. imo
Next subject please.

[martin II]

If memory serves me correctly it was Ito that made the comment that Vanhatter was playing fast and loose with the truth in regards to what he told the Warrant judge to get that search warrant of ojs house. Which should have been enough to void everything the search warrant discovered but that would have tanked the prosecutions case so he let it stand.imo

[William Anthony]

In Dr Walkers book she said Oj simpson did not fit the profile of a abuser that he showed no antisocial behavior in her 60 hours examination of him.
That is more than any person that wrote opinions that were not even a professional and never examined him.

So that should finish the accusations about him. imo
Next subject please.

Do you know of any expert, who the prosecution put on the stand, that had evaluated Simpson and formed an opinion that he would progress to murder that would have made it necessary for the defense to put on Dr. Walker in rebuttal?

[William Anthony]

If memory serves me correctly it was Ito that made the comment that Vanhatter was playing fast and loose with the truth in regards to what he told the Warrant judge to get that search warrant of ojs house. Which should have been enough to void everything the search warrant discovered but that would have tanked the prosecutions case so he let it stand.imo

It appears they did not have enough of a case with it.

[William Anthony]

who said she testified? She gave a deposition, civil trial, and her notes were discussed.

If in fact she made the statements during deposition, they were under oath-a fact that came back to bite at least one prosecution witness in the posterior.

[weezer]

Yes and that is from the link. The quotation marks were there. You wanted a link and you used the word testimony. Where is the link that Simpson was a hoodlum in his youth and the one that pigeon-toes shoe prints were found at Bundy?

sooooo -- you were quoting 'hearsay'? I'm surprised since you seem to have such an aversion to anyone else posting it.

I am not required to post ad nauseaum links to satisfy your inability/unwillingness to admit when you're wrong.

[martin II]

LOL -- I guess her 'expertise' is up for questioning now, don't you? :eek:

Nope
She was the only professional that examined oj so her opinions are worth more than all the other comments from opinion people put togeather.imo:cool:

[martin II]

Do you know of any expert, who the prosecution put on the stand, that had evaluated Simpson and formed an opinion that he would progress to murder that would have made it necessary for the defense to put on Dr. Walker in rebuttal?

Knowing that their expert would give the same examination results as DR Walkers.They did not want to go there so they opted out.

[weezer]

"Those of us who are not jurors have a moral obligation to listen to Nicole Simpson's words: to how O.J. Simpson locked her in a wine closet after beating her and watched TV while she begged him to let her out; to how, in a different hotel room, "O.J. threw me against the walls . . . and on the floor. Put bruises on my arm and back. The window scared me. Thought he'd throw me out." We need to hear how he "threw a fit, chased me, grabbed me, threw me into walls. Threw all my clothes out of the window into the street three floors below. Bruised me." We need to hear how he stalked her after their divorce. "Everywhere I go," she told a friend, "he shows up. I really think he is going to kill me."

We need, especially, to hear her call to a battered women's shelter five days before her murder. In ruling that call inadmissible, Ito said: "To the man or woman on the street, the relevance and probative value of such evidence is both obvious and compelling . . . . However, the laws and appellate-court decisions that must be applied . . . held otherwise." The man and woman on the street need to hear what was obvious to her: The foreknowledge that death was stalking her."

[William Anthony]

"Those of us who are not jurors have a moral obligation to listen to Nicole Simpson's words: to how O.J. Simpson locked her in a wine closet after beating her and watched TV while she begged him to let her out; to how, in a different hotel room, "O.J. threw me against the walls . . . and on the floor. Put bruises on my arm and back. The window scared me. Thought he'd throw me out." We need to hear how he "threw a fit, chased me, grabbed me, threw me into walls. Threw all my clothes out of the window into the street three floors below. Bruised me." We need to hear how he stalked her after their divorce. "Everywhere I go," she told a friend, "he shows up. I really think he is going to kill me."

We need, especially, to hear her call to a battered women's shelter five days before her murder. In ruling that call inadmissible, Ito said: "To the man or woman on the street, the relevance and probative value of such evidence is both obvious and compelling . . . . However, the laws and appellate-court decisions that must be applied . . . held otherwise." The man and woman on the street need to hear what was obvious to her: The foreknowledge that death was stalking her."

Those of us who have morals know the atrocities of anyone, who have suffered abuse and feel that they have no way out. Those of those who feel enough devotion should do more than just have sympathy for the victims of abuse and hatred for the abuser and should devote any un-devoted time that we have to helping the victims and educating the abuser, if this means lobbying for new and increased legislation, spending money, working with the victims and the abusers and trying to open shelters for the victims. We should all become more knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of abuse. While doing all these things, we should keep in mind that the law is there to punish abusers and, based on years of jurisprudence any crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and should not form hasty conclusions due to our sympathy for and hatred for abusers that any one is automatically guilty of abuse or worse crimes.

[William Anthony]

Knowing that their expert would give the same examination results as DR Walkers.They did not want to go there so they opted out.

That was another flaw in their case or presentation of it, since there was no means by which the nexus could be made that he was a murderer.

[martin II]

That was another flaw in their case or presentation of it, since there was no means by which the nexus could be made that he was a murderer.

The prosecution could not prove that the 1989 abuse incident led to a 1995 Murder.

[fgump2]

Knowing that their expert would give the same examination results as DR Walkers.They did not want to go there so they opted out.

In Petrocelli's book, he wrote that they tried to get some experts, Park Dietz, John, Douglas, Donald Dutton, and Gavin de Becker, to testify against system. All four came up with information that pointed to Simpson. The judge would not allow this testimony. One of Petrocelli's colleagues said that this sort of testimony has usually been kept out of trials.
To touch on some other subjects. Peterocelli's book says that killer's foot prints were pigeon toed, but I could find no mention of this in the trial transcripts.
I believe that Simpson was in trouble as a teenager, and that his mother arranged for him to meet Willie Mays, a pro baseball player, who helped straighten OJS out some. In any case there was a lot of talk that OJS was taking uppers an downers, which can contribute to violence.

[martin II]

In Petrocelli's book, he wrote that they tried to get some experts, Park Dietz, John, Douglas, Donald Dutton, and Gavin de Becker, to testify against system. All four came up with information that pointed to Simpson. The judge would not allow this testimony. One of Petrocelli's colleagues said that this sort of testimony has usually been kept out of trials.
To touch on some other subjects. Peterocelli's book says that killer's foot prints were pigeon toed, but I could find no mention of this in the trial transcripts.
I believe that Simpson was in trouble as a teenager, and that his mother arranged for him to meet Willie Mays, a pro baseball player, who helped straighten OJS out some. In any case there was a lot of talk that OJS was taking uppers an downers, which can contribute to violence.


Petrocelli wrote a biased book. He was the plaintiffs lawyer.
A fbi expert diagramed the exact foot prints on the walkway at Bundy . None were pigeon toed.
A lot of talk means nothing but words by someone. you can give a link if you like.:cool:

[martin II]

In Petrocelli's book, he wrote that they tried to get some experts, Park Dietz, John, Douglas, Donald Dutton, and Gavin de Becker, to testify against system. All four came up with information that pointed to Simpson. The judge would not allow this testimony. One of Petrocelli's colleagues said that this sort of testimony has usually been kept out of trials.
To touch on some other subjects. Peterocelli's book says that killer's foot prints were pigeon toed, but I could find no mention of this in the trial transcripts.
I believe that Simpson was in trouble as a teenager, and that his mother arranged for him to meet Willie Mays, a pro baseball player, who helped straighten OJS out some. In any case there was a lot of talk that OJS was taking uppers an downers, which can contribute to violence.


None of the names you listed examined Simpson professionally so their opinions would be worth very little. Or nothing.:cool:

[William Anthony]

It is alleged that Petrocelli said he proved Simpson guilty of murder in the civil trial. A lot of his evidence belonged to the category of the junk crafts. I wonder how you could tell a shoe print was pigeon-toed as opposed to someone standing and about to pivot as a military person would. Ah yes, shoe print analysis is another of the junk crafts.

[weezer]

It is alleged that Petrocelli said he proved Simpson guilty of murder in the civil trial. A lot of his evidence belonged to the category of the junk crafts. I wonder how you could tell a shoe print was pigeon-toed as opposed to someone standing and about to pivot as a military person would. Ah yes, shoe print analysis is another of the junk crafts.

alleged? 12 of his peers found him responsible for the death of Ron Goldman = Ron Goldman was murdered, orenthal james simpson murdered him.

you made me laugh out loud about the 'junk craft stuff' -- since Petrocelli used the 'junk craft' stuff of the criminal defense team to prove orenthal complicit in the deaths.

so, you don't plan on using any of the 'junk crafts' to benefit your client(s)? riiiight

[weezer]

". . .other findings, Dr. Walker freely admitted Simpson was a spousal batterer and Nicole a battered spouse. . ."

[weezer]

this is compliments of Kayleighjo (2005)

"Not all batterers go on to kill, but let's look at the stats this way:

National statistics reveal that every year three to four million women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends, and every day, four women die as the result of battering.

Of all female homicide victims every year in this country, forty percent are killed by their husbands or boyfriends. That's a big statistic. Almost half.

It's not so much looking at how many batterers kill, but of the women that end up dead how many are the result of battering.

40% is a high number when you're talking about murder."

anyone know what the current statistics are?

[William Anthony]

alleged? 12 of his peers found him responsible for the death of Ron Goldman = Ron Goldman was murdered, orenthal james simpson murdered him.

you made me laugh out loud about the 'junk craft stuff' -- since Petrocelli used the 'junk craft' stuff of the criminal defense team to prove orenthal complicit in the deaths.

so, you don't plan on using any of the 'junk crafts' to benefit your client(s)? riiiight

Now you know that it not quite true, since the jury found him liable for the wrongful death of Mr. RG. We have had several discussions about the difference. Murder is not a civil cause of action and surely Petrocelli knew this, despite his need to deceive.

I would think Petrocelli used the junk craft evidence of the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Simpson was liable for the wrongful death (civil) of Mr. RG not murder (criminal).

I plan to use anything I can to benefit my clients and I hope I do not become braggadocios with my wins.

[William Anthony]

this is compliments of Kayleighjo (2005)

"Not all batterers go on to kill, but let's look at the stats this way:

National statistics reveal that every year three to four million women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends, and every day, four women die as the result of battering.

Of all female homicide victims every year in this country, forty percent are killed by their husbands or boyfriends. That's a big statistic. Almost half.

It's not so much looking at how many batterers kill, but of the women that end up dead how many are the result of battering.

40% is a high number when you're talking about murder."

anyone know what the current statistics are?

No and that was a very impressive post, which means that 60% of the women killed in this country every year are killed by someone other than their husband or boyfriends, which means over half.

[William Anthony]

". . .other findings, Dr. Walker freely admitted Simpson was a spousal batterer and Nicole a battered spouse. . ."

That finding would have meant a lot if he had been charged with spousal abuse.

[weezer]

Now you know that it not quite true, since the jury found him liable for the wrongful death of Mr. RG. We have had several discussions about the difference. Murder is not a civil cause of action and surely Petrocelli knew this, despite his need to deceive.

I would think Petrocelli used the junk craft evidence of the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Simpson was liable for the wrongful death (civil) of Mr. RG not murder (criminal).

I plan to use anything I can to benefit my clients and I hope I do not become braggadocios with my wins.

here's the bottom line: the majority of people believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

if I were you, I wouldn't worry about that last statement --

[weezer]

No and that was a very impressive post, which means that 60% of the women killed in this country every year are killed by someone other than their husband or boyfriends, which means over half.

I thought this was really interesting -- "National statistics reveal that every year three to four million women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends, and every day, four women die as the result of battering." -- given the fact that orenthal was found liable for the battery of Nicole Brown.

[weezer]

That finding would have meant a lot if he had been charged with spousal abuse.

you're right -- not this time -- but we do know that he was found guilty of spousal abuse in the past and we do know what the police reports and Nicole's diary stated. . . .

[weezer]

Now you know that it not quite true, since the jury found him liable for the wrongful death of Mr. RG. We have had several discussions about the difference. Murder is not a civil cause of action and surely Petrocelli knew this, despite his need to deceive.

I would think Petrocelli used the junk craft evidence of the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Simpson was liable for the wrongful death (civil) of Mr. RG not murder (criminal).

I plan to use anything I can to benefit my clients and I hope I do not become braggadocios with my wins.

"Question No. 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

[Parker]

I would also like to take this opportunity to, once again, point out that Johnnie Cochran was also admonished, and fined, by Judge Ito for having "a reckless disregard for the truth".

It interests me that it is only regarding LE or the prosecution when "reckless disregard for the truth" is brought up, with no interest in noting that Johnnie Cochran was deemed as having the same. Kate

Good point. It does appear, when you read posts here, that the prosecution were a bunch of bad guys and the defense was the cavalry, riding to the rescue. It was never as simple as that. The defense never had to prove anything, all they had to raise was reasonable doubt. Which they did.

But you also can't change the fact that OJ was found liable of causing the deaths of 2 people in the civil case. And ordered to pay compensation which he has avoided doing. Which is now why he finds himself in jail in Nevada.

Not being testy, William Anthony.:) Just pointing out that I would like to read the thoughts on this case by a professional profiler, such as Dale Hinman or anyone else who does that for a living. Or would you consider criminal profiling to be one of your 'junk' arts and crafts?

[William Anthony]

here's the bottom line: the majority of people believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

if I were you, I wouldn't worry about that last statement --

Here's the bottom line, Simpson was found not guilty of the murders and, regardless of who believes what, he will always be found not guilty.

I don't worry about it but I worry about the law being respected. I hope it is enough to say a person won, without adding glorified untruths in books about their wins.

[William Anthony]

I thought this was really interesting -- "National statistics reveal that every year three to four million women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends, and every day, four women die as the result of battering." -- given the fact that orenthal was found liable for the battery of Nicole Brown.


Did Ms. NBS die as a result of battery?

[William Anthony]

"Question No. 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

I don't see the word murder in that question.

[William Anthony]

Simpson was only found liable for causing the wrongful death of one person.

[William Anthony]

Not being testy, William Anthony.:) Just pointing out that I would like to read the thoughts on this case by a professional profiler, such as Dale Hinman or anyone else who does that for a living.


"THURSDAY, Nov. 7

Park Dietz, forensic psychiatrist

Dietz testified to his expertise in the area of forensic psychiatry citing his association with the FBI Profiling unit and his extensive training and teaching experience at Harvard and Johns Hopkins. In regard to Simpson, Dietz said he could safely conclude that Simpson would have continued to abuse Nicole Simpson, but that he would not necessarily have killed her."

http://walraven.org/simpson/p_wits.html

It seems that Petrocelli was wrong about what testimony was allowed and who testified. Perhaps, he meant the court would not allow them to testify falsely.

[William Anthony]

November 7th, testimony

“And I was medical director of the Institute of Law Psychiatry and Public Policy
at the University of Virginia. I taught half-time at a law school, teaching
courses in law and psychiatry, criminal behavior, crimes of violence, and
related fields; and half of my time, I spent directing the fellowship training
program in forensic psychiatry and bringing the forensic psychiatry clinic to
the university.

During those years, I also began an active association -- or actually, rather,
continued an association with the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. That had
begun in the late 1970s and was formalized in 1981.

And I have, for the years since then, been the psychiatrist for the unit that's
gone under a variety of names. Today it's called the profiling unit. It had
been the behavioral sciences unit. It is part of the National Center for the
Analysis of Violent Crime.”

“Today, I am clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at
U.C.L.A. And I divide my time between a forensic psychiatry practice which
occupies half my time, which is actually a group of -- a number of consultants and another activity, which is called threat assessment group. And that's afirm which provides consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace violence.

We also do some work for governmental agencies. It's preventative work for
preventing people from getting hurt.”

Unlike clinical psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, it's been long recognized
that because people who are parties to a matter are not always truthful, the
indirect evidence about behavior is often more reliable than the direct
evidence that might come from an interview. So whereas in clinical psychiatry, doctors obviously rely greatly on what their patients tell them. In forensic psychiatry, we have to rely on more than direct sources of information.”

“Q. Now, in this case, Dr. Dietz, are you prepared to render an opinion
regarding a likely motive that Mr. Simpson had for committing the two murders
at issue here?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that opinion based on any technique, process or theory that is new to science?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: This being a 402 hearing, overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, as a predicate to my -- and I want it to be clear that your answer assumes that Mr. Simpson is indeed the killer.
And given that assumption, I'm prepared to offer an opinion as to motivation.”

“Q. Okay. Let's start just with the first one you described, which is the
analysis.

As I understand what you're saying, it's based solely on the photographs that
you've seen of the crime scene and the autopsies and the autopsy protocols; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, when you're analyzing those, are you applying what you would call any kind of scientific technique or method?

A. No.”

“Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember testifying to that in your deposition, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the basis to what you intend to elicit. That's what you intend to
tell this jury, correct? That's what you'd like the jury to note at the end of
your testimony?

MR. GELBLUM: Irrelevant what this witness wants this jury to know.

THE COURT: You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't that what you're trying to impart to this jury, that Mr. Simpson is the kind of person that would commit this crime?

A. Not me, no.”

Even with assumptions and no scientific techniques of his arguably junk craft, he couldn't say Simpson was the killer. Given this testimony, I wonder if the civil jury was taking care of their own, even if they did not say it.

[Parker]

Thanks William Anthony for posting this. But I mean someone relevant now. You obviously don't think criminal profiling is a 'junk' arts and crafts. I suppose I should have said 'Cold case' specialist. Dietz was, in what you've posted, a psychiatrist for the profiling unit at Qauntico. He was involved in a threat assessment group that provided consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace violence.

There is nothing there that says he was a criminal profiler. Or recognised as such. A criminal profiler is not a psychiatrist. They are 2 different talents. I would still really be interested to know what a professional criminal profiler would say looking back at the Brown and Goldman murders today. But I appreciate your efforts.

[William Anthony]

Thanks William Anthony for posting this. But I mean someone relevant now. You obviously don't think criminal profiling is a 'junk' arts and crafts. I suppose I should have said 'Cold case' specialist. Dietz was, in what you've posted, a psychiatrist for the profiling unit at Qauntico. He was involved in a threat assessment group that provided consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace violence.

There is nothing there that says he was a criminal profiler. Or recognised as such. A criminal profiler is not a psychiatrist. They are 2 different talents. I would still really be interested to know what a professional criminal profiler would say looking back at the Brown and Goldman murders today. But I appreciate your efforts.

You are quite welcome but I feel you must have missed this part.

I taught half-time at a law school, teaching courses in law and psychiatry, criminal behavior, crimes of violence, and related fields; and half of my time, I spent directing the fellowship training program in forensic psychiatry and bringing the forensic psychiatry clinic to the university.

During those years, I also began an active association -- or actually, rather,
continued an association with the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. That had begun in the late 1970s and was formalized in 1981.

And I have, for the years since then, been the psychiatrist for the unit that's
gone under a variety of names. Today it's called the profiling unit. It had been the behavioral sciences unit. It is part of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.”


However, given this, I fail to see any valuable input a criminal profiler could have.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/9/1532

"The criminal profiler is not preoccupied with specifically naming the offender. Criminal profilers are advisors; detectives and investigators solve cases."

It appears that the detectives and investigators make the arrests, which the prosecution must then brings charges and must prove-ah, that was the method used in the Simpson murder trial and the prosecution failed miserably, imho.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wDOAHxTCgXsC&pg=PA483&lpg=PA483&dq=the+difference+between+a+criminal+profiler+and+ a+behavorial+scientist&source=bl&ots=mXSZGvAMid&sig=D0XVuQeCAPiaQ_ExPk7bI5bnjig&hl=en&ei=3vS4Sf-bCaGbtwfXh9mcBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

Yes, it would seem that retrospective criminal profiling will not be of much value and I think that this will not be a case that will be reopened, unfortunately, due to the sentimentality of most of the court of public opinion, which reinforces the perception that LE got the right person, even though he was/is not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Thanks William Anthony for posting this. But I mean someone relevant now. You obviously don't think criminal profiling is a 'junk' arts and crafts. I suppose I should have said 'Cold case' specialist. Dietz was, in what you've posted, a psychiatrist for the profiling unit at Qauntico. He was involved in a threat assessment group that provided consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace violence.

There is nothing there that says he was a criminal profiler. Or recognised as such. A criminal profiler is not a psychiatrist. They are 2 different talents. I would still really be interested to know what a professional criminal profiler would say looking back at the Brown and Goldman murders today. But I appreciate your efforts.

Parker,

Given that a forensic psychiatrist is part of the team of assistants and two psychiatric experts, one an expert in spousal abuse and the other in forensic psychiatry, have opined that Simpson did not fit the type of person that would move from spousal abuse to murder, do you think that the criminal profiler should ignore their input, and opine that he does?

[weezer]

Here's the bottom line, Simpson was found not guilty of the murders and, regardless of who believes what, he will always be found not guilty.

I don't worry about it but I worry about the law being respected. I hope it is enough to say a person won, without adding glorified untruths in books about their wins.

then we can glean from your post that you do in fact assign responsibility for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown to orenthal james simpson AND that out of respect for that law, orenthal james simpson is liable for the judgments?

[Parker]

Dale Hinman discusses points of entry, methods of murder, ways of escape, APHIS, why the murderer does what he does. His/her motivation, methods of murder, what that says about the murderer, what that says about the victim.

That's what I'm talking about. A criminal profiler.

[William Anthony]

then we can glean from your post that you do in fact assign responsibility for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown to orenthal james simpson AND that out of respect for that law, orenthal james simpson is liable for the judgments?

This is nothing new as I have repeatedly said such.

[martin II]

Thanks William Anthony for posting this. But I mean someone relevant now. You obviously don't think criminal profiling is a 'junk' arts and crafts. I suppose I should have said 'Cold case' specialist. Dietz was, in what you've posted, a psychiatrist for the profiling unit at Qauntico. He was involved in a threat assessment group that provided consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace violence.

There is nothing there that says he was a criminal profiler. Or recognised as such. A criminal profiler is not a psychiatrist. They are 2 different talents. I would still really be interested to know what a professional criminal profiler would say looking back at the Brown and Goldman murders today. But I appreciate your efforts.

I think the most accepted method of examining personalities is examination by a psychiatrist. The Oj simpson criminal case would not be classified as a 'COLD CASE' imo as the case went to trial with a accused present and a verdict was rendered. The prosecution stated they had the right defendeant and announced the case was over as far as they were concerned. They rejected William C Dears investigation as they were not interested in any further investigations or claims in the case.

The prosecution could have called any profiler they thought would help their case but they didn't.

I think the triers of fact were in the best position to determine if the prosecutions claims were true.They spoke on this issue and as difficult as it may be for some to accept this legal verdict it stands.

Public opinion for me means nothing. The public opinion often times is shaped by media reports and TH opinions which we know are wrong more times that right.
Example: The majority of the public thought Iraq had WMD and it was right for the country to go to war.Now very few agree with that action.

[martin II]

Dale Hinman discusses points of entry, methods of murder, ways of escape, APHIS, why the murderer does what he does. His/her motivation, methods of murder, what that says about the murderer, what that says about the victim.

That's what I'm talking about. A criminal profiler.

Do you believe oj simpson climbed the south walkway fence from the neighbors property?

[tv]

I don't see the word murder in that question.
William, let's beat this dead horse one more time. The word murder isn't there but we know that Ron Goldman died as a result of being stabbed with a knife. If OJ Simpson was found liable (meaning responsible) for his wrongful death then he stabbed him to death with a knife. You know it and everyone else on this forum knows it.


Wrongful death:

When a wrongful act-- such as negligence, intentional attack, manslaughter or murder-- of one person results in the death of another. The family who has lost the company and support of the deceased may file a wrongful death action against the party or parties who caused the death.
www.attorneykennugent.com/library/w.html

[William Anthony]

Dale Hinman discusses points of entry, methods of murder, ways of escape, APHIS, why the murderer does what he does. His/her motivation, methods of murder, what that says about the murderer, what that says about the victim.

That's what I'm talking about. A criminal profiler.

Testimony-November 7th,

"Q. Now, in this case, Dr. Dietz, are you prepared to render an opinion
regarding a likely motive that Mr. Simpson had for committing the two murders
at issue here?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that opinion based on any technique, process or theory that is new to
science?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: This being a 402 hearing, overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, as a predicate to my -- and I want it to be clear that your
answer assumes that Mr. Simpson is indeed the killer.

And given that assumption, I'm prepared to offer an opinion as to motivation.

And that opinion would be based on a kind of analysis that is not new and that
is not one that I would characterize as a scientific technique.

Q. Can you describe the process for us?

A. Yes.

The process is a rather straightforward one of first looking at the crime scene
through photographs and diagrams, looking at the injuries to the victims as
portrayed in autopsy photographs, and then the protocol from each autopsy.

And based on the information that comes from the scene and from the autopsies,
looking at the behavior that was necessary in order for that scene to have
resulted and for those injuries to have resulted, and then reasoning about that
scene and those injuries to examine what inferences, if any, can be drawn
behaviorally about the offender.

Q. Does that person you're talking about now assume that Mr. Simpson is the
perpetrator, or is that simply trying to figure out whoever did it, what's the
motivation for this particular crime?

MR. LEONARD: Vague. I didn't understand it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: It's up to you if you understand it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: What I said in my last answer is not based on any assumption of
who did it; but rather, my first approach to look at motive is to look at the
crime scene and the autopsy information.

Q. And that's regardless of who you think may or may not have done it, has
nothing to do with Mr. Simpson?

A. That's correct. That is one source of information as to motive. If one of
them then changes ground and says, assuming that Mr. Simpson is the killer,
what is the motive, that brings into play other data that are specific to Mr.
Simpson and to Ms. Simpson and to Mr. Goldman and to the relationships.

And so with that other information, then it becomes possible to, of course, be
much more specific.

Q. Okay. Let's start just with the first one you described, which is the
analysis.

As I understand what you're saying, it's based solely on the photographs that
you've seen of the crime scene and the autopsies and the autopsy protocols; is
that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, when you're analyzing those, are you applying what you would call
any kind of scientific technique or method?

A. No.

Q. Are the materials that you just described that you relied on in forming your
opinion, materials that are typically relied upon by other experts in this
field?

A. Yes. And in any homicide case, a forensic psychiatrist ought to be concerned
with the crime scene and with the autopsies or autopsy of the victim. And that
kind of information is routinely relied on by those who pay attention to the
data as they should.

Q. What kind of people, in your experience, engage in that kind of analysis;
what kinds of occupations?

A. Well, for crime-scene analysis and looking at all autopsies to learn about
the behavior, that's possibly done most often by homicide detectives who, at
every homicide scene, are trying to do precisely that, and who attend autopsies
largely for that purpose.

It's also done by medical examiners and the other investigators who work at
medical examiners' offices, other people in the forensic sciences, including,
of course, forensic psychiatry.

Q. Is there published literature in this field?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. Can you cite any examples of it?

A. Certainly.

All textbooks of homicide investigation talk about crime-scene analysis. And
that's been true for more than a century.

Probably the earliest psychiatric writings just talk specifically about crime
scenes, which would be the writings of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who, unlike
other forensic psychiatrists of his day, a century ago, had developed a close
friendship with the preeminent professor of criminology at the time, Hans
Gross, who was a student of crime scenes and wrote the most important textbook
of criminal investigation.

In fact, it's still in print today.

Q. When was that first published?

The book was published in 1887. YOU ONLY WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND NOT ANSWER THOSE PUT TO YOU, I SEE.:)

[Parker]

I think the most accepted method of examining personalities is examination by a psychiatrist. The Oj simpson criminal case would not be classified as a 'COLD CASE' imo as the case went to trial with a accused present and a verdict was rendered. The prosecution stated they had the right defendeant and announced the case was over as far as they were concerned. They rejected William C Dears investigation as they were not interested in any further investigations or claims in the case.

The prosecution could have called any profiler they thought would help their case but they didn't.

I think the triers of fact were in the best position to determine if the prosecutions claims were true.They spoke on this issue and as difficult as it may be for some to accept this legal verdict it stands.

Public opinion for me means nothing. The public opinion often times is shaped by media reports and TH opinions which we know are wrong more times that right.
Example: The majority of the public thought Iraq had WMD and it was right for the country to go to war.Now very few agree with that action.

But Martin, aren't you interested at all to find out who was responsible for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? Don't their families have any right to find closure? Don't the Brown and Goldman families have the right to justice?

I think they do. And IMO a criminal profiler looking at this as a cold case could well provide many new ideas.

And I'm sorry but no I don't agree that a psychiatrist is a criminal profiler.
Psychiatrists have many talents but they don't have those of a profiler.

[martin II]

Good point. It does appear, when you read posts here, that the prosecution were a bunch of bad guys and the defense was the cavalry, riding to the rescue. It was never as simple as that. The defense never had to prove anything, all they had to raise was reasonable doubt. Which they did.

But you also can't change the fact that OJ was found liable of causing the deaths of 2 people in the civil case. And ordered to pay compensation which he has avoided doing. Which is now why he finds himself in jail in Nevada.

Not being testy, William Anthony.:) Just pointing out that I would like to read the thoughts on this case by a professional profiler, such as Dale Hinman or anyone else who does that for a living. Or would you consider criminal profiling to be one of your 'junk' arts and crafts?

Well since you agree that the defenseRaised reasonable doubt i am assumming thatYou agree with the criminal trial verdict of not guilty

[William Anthony]

William, let's beat this dead horse one more time. The word murder isn't there but we know that Ron Goldman died as a result of being stabbed with a knife. If OJ Simpson was found liable (meaning responsible) for his wrongful death then he stabbed him to death with a knife. You know it and everyone else on this forum knows it.


Wrongful death:

When a wrongful act-- such as negligence, intentional attack, manslaughter or murder-- of one person results in the death of another. The family who has lost the company and support of the deceased may file a wrongful death action against the party or parties who caused the death.
www.attorneykennugent.com/library/w.html

Let's do it this way, if you will. Simpson being found not guilty of murder, the theory behind the wrongful death lawsuit could not have been that he murdered them. With that in mind, where is the question asking that the jury found Simpson stabbed anyone to death (causation)?

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/areas-law/16894-wrongful-death-attorneys.html

"While state “wrongful death statutes” were drafted independently of each other and are often unique, they all follow the same general principles. A wrongful death claim generally consists of four elements: (1) the death was caused, in whole or part, by the conduct of the defendant; (2) the defendant was negligent or strictly liable for the victim’s death; (3) there is a surviving spouse, children, beneficiaries or dependents; and (4) monetary damages have resulted from the victim’s death.

There were jury questions about battery and we know that the victims was battered. So, from the verdict we can only determine that Simpson's conduct (battery with malice and oppression) contributed to their deaths, whether his conduct was negligent or otherwise.

[Parker]

But Martin, aren't you interested at all to find out who was responsible for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? Don't their families have any right to find closure? Don't the Brown and Goldman families have the right to justice?

I think they do. And IMO a criminal profiler looking at this as a cold case could well provide many new ideas.

And I'm sorry but no I don't agree that a psychiatrist is a criminal profiler.
Psychiatrists have many talents but they don't have those of a profiler.

Martin, I'm not going to reply to your last post to me. It comes across as agressive and that's not necessary. I'll post this to you again.:)

[William Anthony]

Parker,

Do you think it is fair for you to ask questions of posters and they answer them but you won't answer when a poster asks you a question? I realize that is a question to you. :)

[martin II]

But Martin, aren't you interested at all to find out who was responsible for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? Don't their families have any right to find closure? Don't the Brown and Goldman families have the right to justice?

I think they do. And IMO a criminal profiler looking at this as a cold case could well provide many new ideas.

And I'm sorry but no I don't agree that a psychiatrist is a criminal profiler.
Psychiatrists have many talents but they don't have those of a profiler.




I am not sure the solution you offered will uncover a unknown killer or suspect.The prosecution looked at one suspect only and spent 9 months trying to convict.
Wagner and Dear have offered two different theories as to who the killers were.
Since oj was proven not to have murdered anyone and the DA has no intention of reopening the case,The real killer is someone unknown and the case will fall into the catogory of unknown killer as many others do but this is true only for those that don't believe Wagner or Dear or accept the criminal trial legal verdict. You got a new potential defendant?

[tv]

Let's do it this way, if you will. Simpson being found not guilty of murder, the theory behind the wrongful death lawsuit could not have been that he murdered them. With that in mind, where is the question asking that the jury found Simpson stabbed anyone to death (causation)?

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/areas-law/16894-wrongful-death-attorneys.html

"While state “wrongful death statutes” were drafted independently of each other and are often unique, they all follow the same general principles. A wrongful death claim generally consists of four elements: (1) the death was caused, in whole or part, by the conduct of the defendant; (2) the defendant was negligent or strictly liable for the victim’s death; (3) there is a surviving spouse, children, beneficiaries or dependents; and (4) monetary damages have resulted from the victim’s death.

There were jury questions about battery and we know that the victims was battered. So, from the verdict we can only determine that Simpson's conduct (battery with malice and oppression) contributed to their deaths, whether his conduct was negligent or otherwise.

William, you are wrong. Even Alan Dershowitz said the two verdicts were completely reconcilable. The verdict of one trial is not dependent upon the verdict of another. I gave the definition of wrongful death. Please don't start with OJ Simpson was indirectly involved. That's ridiculous and you know it. If he had been driving and his negligent driving killed them I might agree. Ron Goldman was brutally murdered and OJ Simpson was found liable which means he's the one that murdered him.

[martin II]

I am not sure the solution you offered will uncover a unknown killer or suspect.The prosecution looked at one suspect only and spent 9 months trying to convict.
Wagner and Dear have offered two different theories as to who the killers were.
Since oj was proven not to have murdered anyone and the DA has no intention of reopening the case,The real killer is someone unknown and the case will fall into the catogory of unknown killer as many others do but this is true only for those that don't believe Wagner or Dear or accept the criminal trial legal verdict. You got a new potential defendant?


PARKER
Can i expect answers to my two questions to you?

[Parker]

Parker,

Do you think it is fair for you to ask questions of posters and they answer them but you won't answer when a poster asks you a question? I realize that is a question to you. :)

What, is this a tag team event? Do you take it in turns?

I've asked Martin a reasonable question. I've asked you a few as well but got no reply.

I don't have any tag team partners on here. Just my opinion.

Tell you this much, it's interesting. And I'd still like to know whether Martin, or you, William Anthony, would be interested to know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

That's a valid question. IMO. :)

[tv]

I am not sure the solution you offered will uncover a unknown killer or suspect.The prosecution looked at one suspect only and spent 9 months trying to convict.
Wagner and Dear have offered two different theories as to who the killers were.
Since oj was proven not to have murdered anyone and the DA has no intention of reopening the case,The real killer is someone unknown and the case will fall into the catogory of unknown killer as many others do but this is true only for those that don't believe Wagner or Dear or accept the criminal trial legal verdict. You got a new potential defendant?

Hah, I doubt it -- OJ Simpson spent 13 years searching tirelessly for the killer or killers and came up with zip. Slasher conventions, golf courses, super bowls, seedy Vegas hotel rooms and still no suspect, imagine that!

By the way, OJ Simpson was NOT proven to have not murdered anyone. The prosecution failed to convince the jury to vote guilty. Big difference.

[William Anthony]

William, you are wrong. Even Alan Dershowitz said the two verdicts were completely reconcilable. The verdict of one trial is not dependent upon the verdict of another. I gave the definition of wrongful death. Please don't start with OJ Simpson was indirectly involved. That's ridiculous and you know it. If he had been driving and his negligent driving killed them I might agree. Ron Goldman was brutally murdered and OJ Simpson was found liable which means he's the one that murdered him.

I have no disagreement with what AD said, as I realize what he meant, because they are brought under two different causes of actions, standards of proof, legal theories and parties. I have never said that the battery was negligent. I said negligent or otherwise. The fact is that the jury was never asked to decide that Simpson stabbed anyone or that the stabbings caused or contributed to their deaths. Hence, by the special verdict, we can only say that the battery contributed to the death of Mr. RG, as that jury was never asked specifically did Simpson kill anyone. That is all I am saying and, if you want to see it as murder, you will but that is not what the special verdict said or meant. To be correct, I don't know if it was a special or general verdict with special interrogatories.

http://dictionary.getlegal.com/special%20interrogatory

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, if Simpson had more time to devote to the search rather than being tied up in civil courts, he may have made some progress.:)

[martin II]

Martin, I'm not going to reply to your last post to me. It comes across as agressive and that's not necessary. I'll post this to you again.:)

No agressiveness intented on my part at all. You have asked many direct question of posters and no one has accused you of being ageressive.

You have complained that your quesitons have not been answered but then you don't answer questions asked of you.:shrug:

If one believes that the defence proved reasonable doubt then the next assumption is one agrees with the verdict.

[William Anthony]

What, is this a tag team event? Do you take it in turns?

I've asked Martin a reasonable question. I've asked you a few as well but got no reply.

I don't have any tag team partners on here. Just my opinion.

Tell you this much, it's interesting. And I'd still like to know whether Martin, or you, William Anthony, would be interested to know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

That's a valid question. IMO. :)

I have answered your question but you may not have liked the answer.:) You have wrongly said that another poster did not answer you question. I am not a member of a tag team but I think in fairness, you should answer questions before you ask another one which is the last sentence of your post. What do you think about answering my questions to you?

[tv]

I have no disagreement with what AD said, as I realize what he meant, because they are brought under two different causes of actions, standards of proof, legal theories and parties. I have never said that the battery was negligent. I said negligent or otherwise. The fact is that the jury was never asked to decide that Simpson stabbed anyone or that the stabbings caused or contributed to their deaths. Hence, by the special verdict, we can only say that the battery contributed to the death of Mr. RG, as that jury was never asked specifically did Simpson kill anyone. That is all I am saying and, if you want to see it as murder, you will but that is not what the special verdict said or meant.

That's exactly what it meant because the manner of death for Ron Goldman was HOMICIDE.

[tv]

Perhaps, if Simpson had more time to devote to the search rather than being tied up in civil courts, he may have made some progress.:)
If he had refrained from murdering two human beings he wouldn't have been tied up in civil court. Besides, he wasn't that tied up. He didn't even attend every day.

[William Anthony]

That's exactly what it meant because the manner of death for Ron Goldman was HOMICIDE.

And Simpson had been found not guilty of that and double jeopardy prevented him from being retried under that legal theory and or that cause of action. Hence, you have him being tried under a different theory, which did not include stabbing or murder, but that he in some manner, more specifically thorough battery, caused the wrongful death of Mr. RG and given that the cause of death was by stabbing, the battery could have only contributed to the death, as the jury was not asked to decide if he stabbed anyone. That is all that verdict meant or said but, like I said, you are free to believe otherwise.

[William Anthony]

If he had refrained from murdering two human beings he wouldn't have been tied up in civil court. Besides, he wasn't that tied up. He didn't even attend every day.

He was found not guilty of murder and maybe he was searching for the killer(s) on the days he did not attend.:)

[martin II]

I am not sure the solution you offered will uncover a unknown killer or suspect.The prosecution looked at one suspect only and spent 9 months trying to convict.
Wagner and Dear have offered two different theories as to who the killers were.
Since oj was proven not to have murdered anyone and the DA has no intention of reopening the case,The real killer is someone unknown and the case will fall into the catogory of unknown killer as many others do but this is true only for those that don't believe Wagner or Dear or accept the criminal trial legal verdict. You got a new potential defendant?

Hah, I doubt it -- OJ Simpson spent 13 years searching tirelessly for the killer or killers and came up with zip. Slasher conventions, golf courses, super bowls, seedy Vegas hotel rooms and still no suspect, imagine that!

By the way, OJ Simpson was NOT proven to have not murdered anyone. The prosecution failed to convince the jury to vote guilty. Big difference.

i think oj would have liked to have continued his privately financed look for the killer but realizing he had more pressing issues and could not finance
further efforts he gave it up long ago. There was also the DA statement that they had no intention of opening the case. in other words don't come to us with no claims of a killer.

i think oj was forced to make money at conventions, trade shows.

Some cases are never solved but Wagner and Dear did very good investigations.The DA rejcted both out of hand.

Some cases are never solved. Thats life as there are many unsolved cases. But we never know who might confess in the future.imo

[tv]

And Simpson had been found not guilty of that and double jeopardy prevented him from being retried under that legal theory and or that cause of action. Hence, you have him being tried under a different theory, which did not include stabbing or murder, but that he in some manner, more specifically thorough battery, caused the wrongful death of Mr. RG and given that the cause of death was by stabbing, the battery could have only contributed to the death, as the jury was not asked to decide if he stabbed anyone.

Okay, William, against my better judgment, I'll play. Give us a scenario which would cover the verdict in the civil trial. I'm all set. I even have the popcorn.http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/4.gif

[William Anthony]

Okay, William, against my better judgment, I'll play. Give us a scenario which would cover the verdict in the civil trial. I'm all set. I even have the popcorn.http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/4.gif

I don't need to. The verdict and the special interrogatories satisfies your questions. Eat fast. :)

[tv]

He was found not guilty of murder and maybe he was searching for the killer(s) on the days he did not attend.:)LOL, actually, I think he was asked to stay by his defense team because his intimidating presence was giving a bad impression. :)

[William Anthony]

LOL, actually, I think he was asked to stay by his defense team because his intimidating presence was giving a bad impression. :)

I heard that Petrocelli was about to have a melt down, because Simpson kept laughing at him and Simpson feared him.:)

[tv]

I don't need to. The verdict and the special interrogatories satisfies your questions. Eat fast. :)

William, you disappoint me. I really thought you could tell me hypothetically how he could have been responsible for Ron Goldman's death due to some other means than stabbing him to death. It was a serious question in case you couldn't tell. :)

[tv]

I heard that Petrocelli was about to have a melt down, because Simpson kept laughing at him and Simpson feared him.:)
You heard wrong. :) By the way, why would Simpson fear Petrocelli?

[William Anthony]

William, you disappoint me. I really thought you could tell me hypothetically how he could have been responsible for Ron Goldman's death due to some other means than stabbing him to death. It was a serious question in case you couldn't tell. :)

By the verdict, Simpson beat Mr. RG. with malice and oppression, which means that he was probably incapacitated, and someone other than Simpson stabbed him to death.

[tv]

By the verdict, Simpson beat Mr. RG. with malice and oppression, which means that he was probably incapacitated, and someone other than Simpson stabbed him to death.Okey, dokey.

[William Anthony]

You heard wrong. :) By the way, why would Simpson fear Petrocelli?

I don't know but I think Petrocelli was out to prove him guilty of murder in a civil trial, which can't be done and that would cause me to be afraid of someone.:)

[William Anthony]

Okey, dokey.

Annie Oakley, :).

[tv]

I don't know but I think Petrocelli was out to prove him guilty of murder in a civil trial, which can't be done and that would cause me to be afraid of someone.:)Now you're crossing over into fantasyland.

[tv]

Annie Oakley, :).

Uh oh, we're not writing poetry again, are we? :eek: :)

[William Anthony]

Now you're crossing over into fantasyland.

I agree which is what Petrocelli is rumored to have said.

[William Anthony]

Uh oh, we're not writing poetry again, are we? :eek: :)

Trying.:)

[martin II]

William, you disappoint me. I really thought you could tell me hypothetically how he could have been responsible for Ron Goldman's death due to some other means than stabbing him to death. It was a serious question in case you couldn't tell. :)

Would you accept finding ron stabbed on the ground and walking away without assistance?

[Kate Sachel]

Would you accept finding ron stabbed on the ground and walking away without assistance?

Considering that, by verdict, he was found to have committed battery upon Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman your scenario would have to begin with OJ having been at Bundy on that evening committing battery upon the two and then leaving and returning to find Ron Goldman stabbed and then walking away without providing assistance.

Kate

[martin II]

how about oj walked in on K2 working on ron and just walked away.

[Kate Sachel]

I do find it worthy to note that committing battery upon a person extends to far more than beating them with your fists or other body parts, it does also include striking another individual with a weapon.

The verdict form did not specify what type of battery was found to have been committed, thus leaving open the fact that the jury could have found that OJ Simpson committed battery upon the two victims by stabbing them.

Kate

[William Anthony]

how about oj walked in on K2 working on ron and just walked away.

I would have to disagree as battery includes the element of some unwanted and harmful contact. Since the special interrogatories did not include any mention of battery with a weapon, it should not allow us to speculate that it was what was meant. I think the special interrogatories were tailored to reach the appropriate verdict.

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html

[William Anthony]

There seems to be a profound desire to say that the civil trial of wrongful death was in fact a murder trial. I have consistently said that I have no problem with the verdict, believing that the a civil verdict could in no manner equate to a criminal trial on murder. However, since this profound desire seems to be the majority opinion espoused on this board and the judge in the civil case purportedly said, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial", (when no such animal exists), I feel compelled to say, if the majority is correct, that the civil trial was not held for its proper purpose of wrongful death but for the improper purpose of trying to prove Simpson guilty of murder and, as such, was an abuse of the process and a form of payback for the criminal verdict.

[martin II]

I would have to disagree as battery includes the element of some unwanted and harmful contact. Since the special interrogatories did not include any mention of battery with a weapon, it should not allow us to speculate that it was what was meant. I think the special interrogatories were tailored to reach the appropriate verdict.

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html

I agree any my post was just a joke.

[weezer]

What, is this a tag team event? Do you take it in turns?

I've asked Martin a reasonable question. I've asked you a few as well but got no reply.

I don't have any tag team partners on here. Just my opinion.

Tell you this much, it's interesting. And I'd still like to know whether Martin, or you, William Anthony, would be interested to know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

That's a valid question. IMO. :)

sometimes, some posters react in 'pack' mentality. hang in there, you're doing great.

I too would like to see the murder case re-examined from this distance in time; i.e., civil trial, books, television interviews, girlfriend, daughters, etc.

[William Anthony]

sometimes, some posters react in 'pack' mentality. hang in there, you're doing great.

I too would like to see the murder case re-examined from this distance in time; i.e., civil trial, books, television interviews, girlfriend, daughters, etc.

Should I take from the last sentence that you have some doubt that Simpson is the murderer?

[weezer]

Should I take from the last sentence that you have some doubt that Simpson is the murderer?

LOL -- riiiight

you have to admit, it would be very interesting for someone (criminal profiler) to re-examine the murders using everything that was available during the trial and everything learned since.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- riiiight

you have to admit, it would be very interesting for someone (criminal profiler) to re-examine the murders using everything that was available during the trial and everything learned since.

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get. It would be interesting to have someone without a preconceived notion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence investigate, not create a profile, and even more interesting, if it turned up someone other than Simpson but that might destroy years of hatred.

[weezer]

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get. It would be interesting to have someone without a preconceived notion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence investigate, not create a profile, and even more interesting, if it turned up someone other than Simpson but that might destroy years of hatred.

I think you are wrong about how people would react. But then you guys have thought it was always about race even when posters tell you over and over that it wasn't. Or at least it wasn't for me until that ignorant, biased, color-blind jury spoke. imo moo mho

[weezer]

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get. It would be interesting to have someone without a preconceived notion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence investigate, not create a profile, and even more interesting, if it turned up someone other than Simpson but that might destroy years of hatred.

and what would you guys do if it's proven that it was orenthal? would that destroy years of hatred? ;)

[William Anthony]

and what would you guys do if it's proven that it was orenthal? would that destroy years of hatred? ;)

Since I don't hate anyone, it would not matter to me and would find it a travesty of justice that such an inept prosecution allowed him to get away with murder, and, additionally, it would not matter, because of double jeopardy.

[William Anthony]

I think you are wrong about how people would react. But then you guys have thought it was always about race even when posters tell you over and over that it wasn't. Or at least it wasn't for me until that ignorant, biased, color-blind jury spoke. imo moo mho

You are right. Some may continue to be mean spirited, hateful and racially challenged, despite the results of a new investigation exonerating Simpson. So, what would be the point? So, if I understand you correctly the vile remarks made by MF on the tapes did not cause you any concerns about race and it was not until the jury spoke that you thought race played a part, and it was only then that you considered the race of the victims and the defendant and decided to call the magnificent one, cockroach, correct?

[William Anthony]

I think you are wrong about how people would react. But then you guys have thought it was always about race even when posters tell you over and over that it wasn't. Or at least it wasn't for me until that ignorant, biased, color-blind jury spoke. imo moo mho

How did you get race from this post?

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get. It would be interesting to have someone without a preconceived notion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence investigate, not create a profile, and even more interesting, if it turned up someone other than Simpson but that might destroy years of hatred.

[martin II]

LOL -- riiiight

you have to admit, it would be very interesting for someone (criminal profiler) to re-examine the murders using everything that was available during the trial and everything learned since.

The results of this profiler investigation would be what another book full of opinions not tested by a court of law?
i am surprised at your suggestion as l was under the impression that your position was that oj was guilty 100%. imo

[weezer]

Since I don't hate anyone, it would not matter to me and would find it a travesty of justice that such an inept prosecution allowed him to get away with murder, and, additionally, it would not matter, because of double jeopardy.

oh come on william -- you spew hate everytime you talk about LE. Your case makes my point -- :shrug:

[weezer]

You are right. Some may continue to be mean spirited, hateful and racially challenged, despite the results of a new investigation exonerating Simpson. So, what would be the point? So, if I understand you correctly the vile remarks made by MF on the tapes did not cause you any concerns about race and it was not until the jury spoke that you thought race played a part, and it was only then that you considered the race of the victims and the defendant and decided to call the magnificent one, cockroach, correct?

therein lies the difference in how we viewed the trial. My first tip off that orenthal was quite possibly the murderer was when he ran and the suicide note.

I wasn't looking for the boogey man and understood that the audio tapes were for the writing of a screenplay -- I don't believe Stephen King has done the stuff he writes and I don't believe Josie Wells was a real person.

and when I heard the jury was when I knew that they were ignorant, biased, and color-blind.

cochran was just as sleazy as his client -- immoral, unscrupulous, dishonorable, disreputable, corrupt, seedy, dishonest, untrustworthy, deceitful, treacherous, devious, cunning, lying, faithless. I just summed it all up to 'cockroach' --

[William Anthony]

oh come on william -- you spew hate everytime you talk about LE. Your case makes my point -- :shrug:

I despise the conduct of those who take an oath to serve and protect all citizens and don't uphold the oath. I know of a lot of people, who make jokes about LE drinking coffee and eating pastries and not doing their duty. Those people, who despise LE for breaking their oath, and Serpico was a member of LE himself do not hate the person but do hate their conduct, imho. I am able to separate the two, whether or not you believe it. I loath MF's conduct but I do not hate him. He is not one that I would choose to associate with and I am sure he would feel the same about me. I think that to realize that there are some people who will not see eye to eye does a great deal in stopping hatred. How about the testimonies of Bell, Sanger and Hodge? How about the statement that no Ns lived in the neighborhood in which he grew up? How about the the statement that he would burn all the Ns? How about the statement if he went down the case went down? I think the only fairytale is that he made all those statements in the context of a screenplay.

[weezer]

I despise the conduct of those who take an oath to serve and protect all citizens and don't uphold the oath. I know of a lot of people, who make jokes about LE drinking coffee and eating pastries and not doing their duty. Those people, who despise LE for breaking their oath, and Serpico was a member of LE himself do not hate the person but do hate their conduct, imho. I am able to separate the two, whether or not you believe it. I loath MF's conduct but I do not hate him. He is not one that I would choose to associate with and I am sure he would feel the same about me. I think that to realize that there are some people who will not see eye to eye does a great deal in stopping hatred.

and I despise someone who doesn't have the cajones to say what they mean and mean what they say. especially, when those are the same people who are the first to scream for LE and the courts when they need them. There was nothing about Fuhrman's conduct for you to loath. And if you loath him for words, then you must have a real problem with all writers.

[William Anthony]

therein lies the difference in how we viewed the trial. My first tip off that orenthal was quite possibly the murderer was when he ran and the suicide note.

I wasn't looking for the boogey man and understood that the audio tapes were for the writing of a screenplay -- I don't believe Stephen King has done the stuff he writes and I don't believe Josie Wells was a real person.

and when I heard the jury was when I knew that they were ignorant, biased, and color-blind.

cochran was just as sleazy as his client -- immoral, unscrupulous, dishonorable, disreputable, corrupt, seedy, dishonest, untrustworthy, deceitful, treacherous, devious, cunning, lying, faithless. I just summed it all up to 'cockroach' --

So you considered the possibility that Simpson was the murderer before one piece of evidenced was introduced. Some on the jury may have felt the same way but they took an oath to set aside their personal feelings and to find him guilty or not based on the evidence and for this they receive the type of remarks you make, because they disagreed with you or what they thought the important evidence was.

Those who knew him and worked with him and even judge Ito had a different opinion of him, the magnificent one. I wonder how you would have felt about him, if he had still been a prosecutor. I think he might have won if he was and VB would have been furious, imho.

[weezer]

So you considered the possibility that Simpson was the murderer before one piece of evidenced was introduced. Some on the jury may have felt the same way but they took an oath to set aside their personal feelings and to find him guilty or not based on the evidence and for this they receive the type of remarks you make, because they disagreed with you or what they thought the important evidence was.

Those who knew him and worked with him and even judge Ito had a different opinion of him, the magnificent one. I wonder how you would have felt about him, if he had still been a prosecutor. I think he might have won if he was and VB would have been furious, imho.

oh please -- I don't start trying to guess the end of a mystery until the end of the story! and if you do, you're in the minority.

The jury left no doubt about what they based their 'verdict' on even though it meant they violated their oath.

I watched a man set out to demonize people and destroy their reputations -- including the victims -- just to win. I learned that his claim to fame was riding the backs of clients (majority minority) all the way to the bank. I learned that he was adulterer and abuser. I learned that he fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else. And I'm still wondering if he's the lawyer that got the Rolls --

[William Anthony]

oh please -- I don't start trying to guess the end of a mystery until the end of the story! and if you do, you're in the minority.

The jury left no doubt about what they based their 'verdict' on even though it meant they violated their oath.

I watched a man set out to demonize people and destroy their reputations -- including the victims -- just to win. I learned that his claim to fame was riding the backs of clients (majority minority) all the way to the bank. I learned that he was adulterer and abuser. I learned that he fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else. And I'm still wondering if he's the lawyer that got the Rolls --

I was going by your statement and the suicide note or the so-called police chase were not a part of the evidence.

Since the majority of those in the legal profession and, even some of the Gs on this board, readily admit there was reasonable doubt, then the logical and unbiased opinion is that the jury upheld its oath, despite the feelings of the majority or the minority of the court of public opinion.

I saw a man magnificently give his clients the best defense and get paid for the magnificence of his efforts. What he received as a result of his magnificence does not matter to me, when he upheld his oath, as opposed to those who violated their oaths and benefited or continue to benefit from their violations. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. I will admit that I find it odd that those who lost the case and oath violators seem to benefit without retribution from their faults, except for Darden, while those that won and kept their oaths are ostracized.

[William Anthony]

and I despise someone who doesn't have the cajones to say what they mean and mean what they say. especially, when those are the same people who are the first to scream for LE and the courts when they need them. There was nothing about Fuhrman's conduct for you to loath. And if you loath him for words, then you must have a real problem with all writers.

MF was not the writer. LHM wrote the screen play. I loathed the way he hobbled to the witness stand to take the 5th, after proudly marching to it to commit perjury. I suppose you believe that Ms. Bell, Ms. Sanger and Mr. Hodge and LHM all had a reason to lie on the person convicted of perjury.

[martin II]

therein lies the difference in how we viewed the trial. My first tip off that orenthal was quite possibly the murderer was when he ran and the suicide note.

I wasn't looking for the boogey man and understood that the audio tapes were for the writing of a screenplay -- I don't believe Stephen King has done the stuff he writes and I don't believe Josie Wells was a real person.

and when I heard the jury was when I knew that they were ignorant, biased, and color-blind.

cochran was just as sleazy as his client -- immoral, unscrupulous, dishonorable, disreputable, corrupt, seedy, dishonest, untrustworthy, deceitful, treacherous, devious, cunning, lying, faithless. I just summed it all up to 'cockroach' --


making moral judgements i see.

[martin II]

oh please -- I don't start trying to guess the end of a mystery until the end of the story! and if you do, you're in the minority.

The jury left no doubt about what they based their 'verdict' on even though it meant they violated their oath.

I watched a man set out to demonize people and destroy their reputations -- including the victims -- just to win. I learned that his claim to fame was riding the backs of clients (majority minority) all the way to the bank. I learned that he was adulterer and abuser. I learned that he fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else. And I'm still wondering if he's the lawyer that got the Rolls --

The lagal profession gave great praise to Cochran. God has not commented as yet at least to no one here. imo

[weezer]

MF was not the writer. LHM wrote the screen play. I loathed the way he hobbled to the witness stand to take the 5th, after proudly marching to it to commit perjury. I suppose you believe that Ms. Bell, Ms. Sanger and Mr. Hodge and LHM all had a reason to lie on the person convicted of perjury.

there is no way I can reason with you -- MF was going to receive monies when/if LHM was able to sell the screenplay. LHM never advertised the screenplay as non-fiction. I didn't think he 'hobbled' anywhere. you obviously are like the loser juror who 'knew when he walked to the stand the first day that he was a 'skinhead' racist. I do think that in a career that spanned the years that Fuhrman's did, for the things to have been done and said against him, there would have been more than three witnesses and 0 to testify that he was not as the defense was portraying him.

you know, if I follow your logic that LHM was only the writer and Fuhrman was responsible for telling the story, then do you accept the if I DID IT book to be orenthal's confession?

[William Anthony]

The lagal profession gave great praise to Cochran. God has not commented as yet at least to no one here. imo

I am again reluctant to post from this source. However, it is interesting to note that Ms. Denise Brown called the magnificent one a great lawyer.

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

[William Anthony]

there is no way I can reason with you -- MF was going to receive monies when/if LHM was able to sell the screenplay. LHM never advertised the screenplay as non-fiction. I didn't think he 'hobbled' anywhere. you obviously are like the loser juror who 'knew when he walked to the stand the first day that he was a 'skinhead' racist. I do think that in a career that spanned the years that Fuhrman's did, for the things to have been done and said against him, there would have been more than three witnesses and 0 to testify that he was not as the defense was portraying him.

you know, if I follow your logic that LHM was only the writer and Fuhrman was responsible for telling the story, then do you accept the if I DID IT book to be orenthal's confession?

There is no way some of the comments MF made had to do with the screen play. The play was about sexism not racism. Are you saying that any White LE person who is sexist is racist? I know you are familiar with the term cumulative and judge Ito's remarks in regard to that as it pertained to the MF witnesses. You are correct there were no witnesses that testified MF was not as the defense depicted him, other than the convicted perjurer himself. In fact, the prosecution conceded that he was exactly the racist the defense exposed him to be.

[William Anthony]

there is no way I can reason with you -- MF was going to receive monies when/if LHM was able to sell the screenplay. LHM never advertised the screenplay as non-fiction.

Are you saying that a female LE member can handle a big White man but not a big Black man? Are you saying that, if LE see's a White person driving a BMW and wearing clothes that don't fit the ride, they should let them go and stop a Black man fitting the above description? Are you saying that an entire race of Blacks should be burned and Whites should not? Are you saying that all or some White male sexists LE members feel this way and speak this way?

[martin II]

What law abiding good honest cop would utter the words that furhman uttered even for a screenplay.A good cop would never be associated with this kind of talk. only a cop that has those words as part of his makeup or regular way of policing would allow his name to be associated with those comments.So furhams was not like most cops, he was a racist to the bone. He brought shame on all good cops.imo

[weezer]

for those who believe God hasn't passed judgment:


SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

[William Anthony]

for those who believe God hasn't passed judgment:


SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

I am satisfied to let God do his job and the lawyers theirs. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[weezer]

There is no way some of the comments MF made had to do with the screen play. The play was about sexism not racism. Are you saying that any White LE person who is sexist is racist? I know you are familiar with the term cumulative and judge Ito's remarks in regard to that as it pertained to the MF witnesses. You are correct there were no witnesses that testified MF was not as the defense depicted him, other than the convicted perjurer himself. In fact, the prosecution conceded that he was exactly the racist the defense exposed him to be.

and you know that how? because your hatred of LE has shown you the boogey man.

and you are incorrect -- there were witnesses that testified on behalf of Fuhrman.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly Furhman did to earn such hatred from you?

[weezer]

Are you saying that a female LE member can handle a big White man but not a big Black man? Are you saying that, if LE see's a White person driving a BMW and wearing clothes that don't fit the ride, they should let them go and stop a Black man fitting the above description? Are you saying that an entire race of Blacks should be burned and Whites should not? Are you saying that all or some White male sexists LE members feel this way and speak this way?

wow - dude! all I'm saying is that Fuhrman collaborated with a writer to write a screenplay. it's done all the time and guess what? it doesn't mean the things could or did really happen. :cool:

[William Anthony]

wow - dude! all I'm saying is that Fuhrman collaborated with a writer to write a screenplay. it's done all the time and guess what? it doesn't mean the things could or did really happen. :cool:

What do you think any of those things have to do with sexism? Now, let's look at what LHM explained to MF about what she wanted from him.

August 29th

MR. DARDEN: Some of the more realistic aspects of your screenplay was the procedures used by the LAPD, correct?

MS. MCKINNY: I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?

MR. DARDEN: Some of the aspects of your screenplay that are factual, as opposed to fictional, include things like the procedures utilized by the LAPD?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes. Some of them are factual.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. MCKINNY: As far as I would know.

MR. DARDEN: Now, when you--when you spoke to Detective Fuhrman about the screenplay initially, did you tell him that you were hoping to write a screenplay suitable for movie theaters, as opposed to a television movie?

MS. MCKINNY: That wouldn't have been discussed initially, but yes, I did tell him that I wanted to write a feature.

MR. DARDEN: And the reason you wanted to do a feature film, as opposed to a TV movie, was because you wanted to make certain that the movie or screenplay was extremely dramatic, correct?

MS. MCKINNY: I wanted to make certain that if we were dealing about issues of whether or not women could succeed in areas of high crime, that I was accurately representing to the best of my ability what might in fact take place there and I didn't know if that could be accurately depicted on television.

[martin II]

There is no way some of the comments MF made had to do with the screen play. The play was about sexism not racism. Are you saying that any White LE person who is sexist is racist? I know you are familiar with the term cumulative and judge Ito's remarks in regard to that as it pertained to the MF witnesses. You are correct there were no witnesses that testified MF was not as the defense depicted him, other than the convicted perjurer himself. In fact, the prosecution conceded that he was exactly the racist the defense exposed him to be.

William i think the poster may be dissagreeing with M Clarke when i think she said Furhman should have never been a cop in her closing statement. M Clarke had his entire record as a lapd officer including the lie he told when he was applying for the retirement. Or was he actually lying then. Maby not.imo

[William Anthony]

and you know that how? because your hatred of LE has shown you the boogey man.

and you are incorrect -- there were witnesses that testified on behalf of Fuhrman.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly Furhman did to earn such hatred from you?

If I hated anyone, it would be him and, if you have to figure that out, then something wrong. What witness testified on behalf of MF in the criminal trial? There is no way racism has anything to do with sexism, although a person can be both, imho. Even judge Ito realized that MF was speaking his true feelings but decided to choose the least inflammatory of his remarks to be played before the jury. However, all Americans, who realize the wrongness of his racial remarks, despised them, including LHM, Ms. Clark, Darden, the magnificent one and judge Ito or at least the publicly denounced them or stated how vile MF's words were and, IIRC, Ms. Clark said he was a racist. Ignorance and color blindness is not limited to race or sex or station, imho.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson11/index.html

[martin II]

wow - dude! all I'm saying is that Fuhrman collaborated with a writer to write a screenplay. it's done all the time and guess what? it doesn't mean the things could or did really happen. :cool:

I know of no situation that a cop did what Furhman did.Not even for a play.
So what he did as a cop is not done "all the time".

[William Anthony]

More on what LHM told MF

September 5th

MR. COCHRAN: What did you tell him about the conversation or the kind of things you wanted him to share with you regarding police work?

MR. DARDEN: Also calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted to write a fictional piece based on fact, so it was very important to me that I had a really clear idea of what some police officers would say in a given situation, so that the instances that he would give me would be as factual and realistic as possible.

MR. COCHRAN: You asked him to be factual and realistic, did you?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

[William Anthony]

fbgweezer,

I return to this post of yours,

I think you are wrong about how people would react. But then you guys have thought it was always about race even when posters tell you over and over that it wasn't. Or at least it wasn't for me until that ignorant, biased, color-blind jury spoke. imo moo mho

and ask you, so MF's words or the testimony of the witnesses about his racial animosity or the fact that Ms. Clark admitted he was a racist did not cause you to think race was an issue until in your opinion that " ignorant, biased, color-blind jury spoke, correct?

[tv]

MF was not the writer. LHM wrote the screen play. I loathed the way he hobbled to the witness stand to take the 5th, after proudly marching to it to commit perjury. I suppose you believe that Ms. Bell, Ms. Sanger and Mr. Hodge and LHM all had a reason to lie on the person convicted of perjury.

Please provide a link to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman hobbled to the witness stand rather than walking in his normal manner.

[William Anthony]

Please provide a link to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman hobbled to the witness stand rather than walking in his normal manner.

When I have the opportunity to review my VCR tapes and, when I have the chance to dub it, if you have a VCR player, I will gladly send you a copy. In the meantime you may look for it in a link beside the one for the pigeon-toed shoe print. :)

[martin II]

Please provide a link to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman hobbled to the witness stand rather than walking in his normal manner.

See any report of the event.

[martin II]

Please provide a link to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman hobbled to the witness stand rather than walking in his normal manner.

I saw him hobble in also after the Baily beatdown and all.I think everyone saw that.

[weezer]

"Still, their lawyer recently tried to sell the transcripts to Dove Books for $500,000, publisher Michael Viner said. Viner, who has published several books related to the Simpson trial, turned them down, explaining: "It didn't even pass the smell test as being anything close to literature."

The transcripts may not have rated as fine literature. But McKinny labored for a decade to turn her raw material into a screenplay.

The result: "Men Against Women," a story of a rookie female police officer who falls in love with her patrol partner -- a man who just happens to belong to a club of racist, sexist and all-around nasty cops..."

[William Anthony]

"Still, their lawyer recently tried to sell the transcripts to Dove Books for $500,000, publisher Michael Viner said. Viner, who has published several books related to the Simpson trial, turned them down, explaining: "It didn't even pass the smell test as being anything close to literature."

The transcripts may not have rated as fine literature. But McKinny labored for a decade to turn her raw material into a screenplay.

The result: "Men Against Women," a story of a rookie female police officer who falls in love with her patrol partner -- a man who just happens to belong to a club of racist, sexist and all-around nasty cops..."

"MR. DARDEN: Well, your Honor, the court may have already noticed, we have sat here and we have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it is clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who is watching these proceedings this morning. I think the Defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, among many, many other things. But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman. And what we have heard is that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide, genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples, he will find something to stop interracial couples, he wants to burn all African Americans or bomb African Americans. We have heard it and we have not disputed it. It is done. Okay? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today I think is done. Okay? The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative. The court ought to cut it off now under 352 and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It is time to get back to that.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly, your Honor. We are in fact trying the case of People versus O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested, he hasn't been in jail for fourteen months or fifteen months. This is the man who is on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what is important and we are going to link it up. What I would offer to do--and we have been mindful of your Honor's concerns under 352. And that is why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she would be cumulative--cumulative is the word, your Honor--of perhaps Kathleen Bell, so you didn't hear me call her. Roderic Hodge stands in a different position, your Honor. We have heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she, because of the tape, as the court is aware. Roderic Hodge stands differently, your Honor. As you recall from the offer of proof last week, he's the man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you will recall what--Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, "I told you we would get you" blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman so he is in a different position. It is very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The direct exam will be very brief and right to the point. And then I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it is cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again we have taken one morning, less than one morning, versus six months. We have had less than six weeks and now everything becomes cumulative.

And we are trying to pare it down, being mindful of your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I have indicated to you. He is the only witness"

I guess fate must have been on LHM when MF asked her about her computer, because she got a real life character to fit her screen play. I wonder how many people were angry that she exposed MF for MF.

[martin II]

"Still, their lawyer recently tried to sell the transcripts to Dove Books for $500,000, publisher Michael Viner said. Viner, who has published several books related to the Simpson trial, turned them down, explaining: "It didn't even pass the smell test as being anything close to literature."

The transcripts may not have rated as fine literature. But McKinny labored for a decade to turn her raw material into a screenplay.

The result: "Men Against Women," a story of a rookie female police officer who falls in love with her patrol partner -- a man who just happens to belong to a club of racist, sexist and all-around nasty cops..."

Furhman was supposed to be a member of MAW

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . .But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman.

:shrug:

[William Anthony]

:shrug:

It turned out that Darden was wrong about that too as MF was the only one to be convicted as a result of the trial.

[martin II]

"MR. DARDEN: Well, your Honor, the court may have already noticed, we have sat here and we have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it is clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who is watching these proceedings this morning. I think the Defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, among many, many other things. But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman. And what we have heard is that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide, genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples, he will find something to stop interracial couples, he wants to burn all African Americans or bomb African Americans. We have heard it and we have not disputed it. It is done. Okay? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today I think is done. Okay? The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative. The court ought to cut it off now under 352 and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It is time to get back to that.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly, your Honor. We are in fact trying the case of People versus O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested, he hasn't been in jail for fourteen months or fifteen months. This is the man who is on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what is important and we are going to link it up. What I would offer to do--and we have been mindful of your Honor's concerns under 352. And that is why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she would be cumulative--cumulative is the word, your Honor--of perhaps Kathleen Bell, so you didn't hear me call her. Roderic Hodge stands in a different position, your Honor. We have heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she, because of the tape, as the court is aware. Roderic Hodge stands differently, your Honor. As you recall from the offer of proof last week, he's the man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you will recall what--Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, "I told you we would get you" blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman so he is in a different position. It is very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The direct exam will be very brief and right to the point. And then I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it is cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again we have taken one morning, less than one morning, versus six months. We have had less than six weeks and now everything becomes cumulative.

And we are trying to pare it down, being mindful of your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I have indicated to you. He is the only witness"

I guess fate must have been on LHM when MF asked her about her computer, because she got a real life character to fit her screen play. I wonder how many people were angry that she exposed MF for MF.

SO
Darden and M C larke called furhman a racist in open court and some here don't believe it.

[William Anthony]

Furhman was supposed to be a member of MAW

I thought he was the Grand Wizard, or is it Lizard. :)

[William Anthony]

SO
Darden and M C larke called furhman a racist in open court and some here don't believe it.

Darden was right to say "I think" the defense established MF was a racist to the rest of the nation. I guess there were a few non believers.

[weezer]

It turned out that Darden was wrong about that too as MF was the only one to be convicted as a result of the trial.

Mr. Darden was prosecuting a murder case and his observation about loss of focus was right on target.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Darden was prosecuting a murder case and his observation about loss of focus was right on target.

Darden was off focus, because MF got convicted and he was right that MF was "many, many, many things" beside a racists but hobbling up to the witness stand and taking the 5th kept the nation from discovering what those many, many, many things were.

[weezer]

Darden was off focus, because MF got convicted and he was right that MF was "many, many, many things" beside a racists but hobbling up to the witness stand and taking the 5th kept the nation from discovering what those many, many, many things were.

:no: are you forgetting all of the investigations into Furhman with no evidence that he'd done any of the things he talked about?

so william, tell me what Ron and Nicole did that warranted a murder trial being turned into the trial of LE?

[martin II]

Mr. Darden was prosecuting a murder case and his observation about loss of focus was right on target.

Darden and Clarke solved the mistory of whether furhman was a racist and many many other things.

[weezer]

It turned out that Darden was wrong about that too as MF was the only one to be convicted as a result of the trial.

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

[William Anthony]

:no: are you forgetting all of the investigations into Furhman with no evidence that he'd done any of the things he talked about?

so william, tell me what Ron and Nicole did that warranted a murder trial being turned into the trial of LE?

Are you forgetting that unfounded is not the same as saying that he did nothing and in fact that one of the investigation teams said, as MF said on the tapes, they were not saying that he didn't do anything wrong but that the statute of limitations had expired.

It was not what the victims did. It was what LE did. The DAs relied on LE and it was only fitting that LE be placed under the microscope. What Citizens deserve to be harassed and abused by LE, because of the color of their skin?

[martin II]

:no: are you forgetting all of the investigations into Furhman with no evidence that he'd done any of the things he talked about?

so william, tell me what Ron and Nicole did that warranted a murder trial being turned into the trial of LE?

Darden and Clarke knew more about Furhan than anyone after they looked at his record.Both said he was a racist. end of story.

[weezer]

Are you forgetting that unfounded is not the same as saying that he did nothing and in fact that one of the investigation teams said, as MF said on the tapes, they were not saying that he didn't do anything wrong but that the statute of limitations had expired.

It was not what the victims did. It was what LE did. The DAs relied on LE and it was only fitting that LE be placed under the microscope. What Citizens deserve to be harassed and abused by LE, because of the color of their skin?

there is and has never been evidence that Fuhrman did any of the things he talked about in the screenplay.

you know how you NG's are always arguing that the trial wasn't about domestic abuse? psst -- guess what? the trial wasn't about LE either. especially when the defense could produce no evidence but a screenplay to incite their criminal jury.

I'll ask you, what murder victim and/or murder victim family deserves to have justice high-jacked to satisfy a need for revenge?

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

He should have gotten convicted of that but Monger wisely had him take the 5th and we have already discussed my disagreement with Ito playing the jury. Remember, judge Ito would not allow them to play the statement, if MF went down, the case went down. I think that would have been an interesting line of questioning and was very relevant to the case and MF's knowledge of the statute of limitations in conjunction with his denial. I think the brilliant Bailey would have had a field day.

[William Anthony]

there is and has never been evidence that Fuhrman did any of the things he talked about in the screenplay.

you know how you NG's are always arguing that the trial wasn't about domestic abuse? psst -- guess what? the trial wasn't about LE either. especially when the defense could produce no evidence but a screenplay to incite their criminal jury.

I'll ask you, what murder victim and/or murder victim family deserves to have justice high-jacked to satisfy a need for revenge?

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

[William Anthony]

Darden and Clarke knew more about Furhan than anyone after they looked at his record.Both said he was a racist. end of story.

They said racist and a liar and many, many things. Oh yes, he was convicted of being a liar.

[weezer]

He should have gotten convicted of that but Monger wisely had him take the 5th and we have already discussed my disagreement with Ito playing the jury. Remember, judge Ito would not allow them to play the statement, if MF went down, the case went down. I think that would have been an interesting line of questioning and was very relevant to the case and MF's knowledge of the statute of limitations in conjunction with his denial. I think the brilliant Bailey would have had a field day.

maybe -- if he could stay sober and didn't steal the witness chair! :tongue:

[weezer]

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

[weezer]

They said racist and a liar and many, many things. Oh yes, he was convicted of being a liar.

yep -- that was certainly worth highjacking the murder trial over. big whoop! Mark Fuhrman is a liar. do you feel better now?

[martin II]

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

you should consider giving it up imo

[William Anthony]

maybe -- if he could stay sober and didn't steal the witness chair! :tongue:

He stayed sober long enough to expose MF to the world and long enough to steal the prosecution's thunder. I'll bet other LE members were praying that MF would take the weight like he bragged about doing on the tapes and take the 5th as Monger suggested.

[William Anthony]

you should consider giving it up imo

Why? I think she honestly believes MF was a choir boy and sugar melted in that vile mouth of his.

[weezer]

He stayed sober long enough to expose MF to the world and long enough to steal the prosecution's thunder. I'll bet other LE members were praying that MF would take the weight like he bragged about doing on the tapes and take the 5th as Monger suggested.

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

[weezer]

Why? I think she honestly believes MF was a choir boy and sugar melted in that vile mouth of his.

nah -- I just don't see the boogey man everywhere I look. :D

[William Anthony]

yep -- that was certainly worth highjacking the murder trial over. big whoop! Mark Fuhrman is a liar. do you feel better now?

No, he is a perjurer-a convicted felon, whose hobbling to the stand and taking the 5th and avoiding being questioned about what he meant by if he goes down the case goes down allows those to remain in the dark who refuse to see the light.

[William Anthony]

nah -- I just don't see the boogey man everywhere I look. :D

Only in certain juries.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

[weezer]

Of course, you want to deny what was said by those that conducted the investigation into MF's corrupt conduct.

I am not an NG and the trial was about how LE conducted their investigation, whether or not LE had done anything untoward and the credibility of LE witnesses.

What accused needs to be wrongly convicted to satisfy the thirst of most of America?

show me where there is an investigation where evidence is given of Furhman doing the stuff that he talked about in the screenplay.

the trial was about the murder of two human beings. too bad not everyone understood that.

[weezer]

There were three investigations into his conduct: a civil rights investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an inquiry into whether he committed perjury by the California Attorney General's office, and a full-scale "biopsy," as police officials call it, of all Mr. Fuhrman's cases by the Los Angeles Police Department.

which one supports your post?

oh, let's don't forget the investigation by the defense -- they couldn't come up with anything either. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

show me where there is an investigation where evidence is given of Furhman doing the stuff that he talked about in the screenplay.

the trial was about the murder of two human beings. too bad not everyone understood that.

I have already posted about the investigations and why he was not brought up on charges due to the statute of limitations.

The trial was about whether of not the prosecution could produce evidence of a sufficient caliber and, by doing so, persuade a jury that Simpson was guilty as charged above and beyond a reasonable doubt and it is too bad not everyone understood that.

[weezer]

I have already posted about the investigations and why he was not brought up on charges due to the statute of limitations.

The trial was about whether of not the prosecution could produce evidence of a sufficient caliber and, by doing so, persuade a jury that Simpson was guilty as charged above and beyond a reasonable doubt and it is too bad not everyone understood that.

LOL -- of course you did. . .

nothing that was done could/would change orenthal james simpson's DNA into someone else's and vice versa. and that's more than beyond a reasonable doubt. but then we all remember this brilliant statement: "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried no weight with me."

[weezer]

Ms. Moran said: "This was a murder trial, not domestic abuse. If you want to get tried for domestic abuse, go in another direction."

[William Anthony]

There were three investigations into his conduct: a civil rights investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an inquiry into whether he committed perjury by the California Attorney General's office, and a full-scale "biopsy," as police officials call it, of all Mr. Fuhrman's cases by the Los Angeles Police Department.

which one supports your post?

oh, let's don't forget the investigation by the defense -- they couldn't come up with anything either. :shrug:

I will continue to look for the investigation, although it was posted but try this link.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/cases/katrina/Human%20Rights%20Watch/uspohtml/uspo76.htm

[weezer]

I will continue to look for the investigation, although it was posted but try this link.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/cases/katrina/Human%20Rights%20Watch/uspohtml/uspo76.htm

tried the link:

". . .In investigating Fuhrman's claims of brutality and harassment of female officers, the department found that many of the brutality incidents did not take place as he had described or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping. . ."

[William Anthony]

LOL -- of course you did. . .

nothing that was done could/would change orenthal james simpson's DNA into someone else's and vice versa. and that's more than beyond a reasonable doubt. but then we all remember this brilliant statement: "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried no weight with me."

What about the missing blood? What about that, Ms. Fbgweezer? I'll bet you don't understand and didn't understand the testimony in regard to DNA. Where is the evidence of when Simpson blood was shed, other than the Rockingham trail that conflicts with where the glove was found.

[weezer]

What about the missing blood? What about that, Ms. Fbgweezer? I'll bet you don't understand and didn't understand the testimony in regard to DNA. Where is the evidence of when Simpson blood was shed, other than the Rockingham trail that conflicts with where the glove was found.

in the statement he gave to the police, Mr. Simpson said he had cut himself while still in Los Angeles. In that statement, Mr. Simpson said he had reopened in Chicago a wound that he sustained the previous evening, while rushing to catch his flight. That wound, he said, accounted for the blood drops the police found around his house.

"I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal," he said in the statement. "I bleed all the time." He said he placed a napkin on his finger, and the bleeding stopped."

There was no missing blood.

[weezer]

What about the missing blood? What about that, Ms. Fbgweezer? I'll bet you don't understand and didn't understand the testimony in regard to DNA. Where is the evidence of when Simpson blood was shed, other than the Rockingham trail that conflicts with where the glove was found.

I understood enough to know that the DNA wasn't Mazzola's, or one of the children's -- that makes me understand more than our criminal jury.

[William Anthony]

tried the link:

". . .In investigating Fuhrman's claims of brutality and harassment of female officers, the department found that many of the brutality incidents did not take place as he had described or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping. . ."

You failed to put in bold this part, or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping.[/B] .

You may have overlooked these parts.

The report did confirm, and express outrage, that there was institutional harassment of women on the force that was ignored by police officials.64 By delving into Fuhrman's claims, the department's investigators also acknowledged serious shortcomings in the way it investigates and adjudicates complaints alleging abuses by officers, with many of its findings and recommendations echoing those of the Christopher Commission and subsequent reports.

Although Fuhrman was the subject of seven civil lawsuits during his career, the city was found to have no record of three of the suits.66

One of the explanations for Fuhrman being allowed to stay on the force was this: "He knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct."67 This point assumes that there is such a line and implies that a high level of abuse was permissible within its bounds. In the absence of a functioning early warning system, the observation illustrates the need for oversight of police conduct that looks beyond the latest incident to a pattern that may span years and may manifest itself in a variety of ways, in contrast to an officer who hits someone in the same situation in incident after incident. Repeating one of the major findings of the Christopher Commission investigation, the report concludes, "[T]he Department must identify problem officers so investigations of this sort are not necessary in the future."68

[weezer]

You failed to put in bold this part, or were impossible to confirm due to failed memories and flawed record-keeping.[/B] .

You may have overlooked these parts.

The report did confirm, and express outrage, that there was institutional harassment of women on the force that was ignored by police officials.64 By delving into Fuhrman's claims, the department's investigators also acknowledged serious shortcomings in the way it investigates and adjudicates complaints alleging abuses by officers, with many of its findings and recommendations echoing those of the Christopher Commission and subsequent reports.

Although Fuhrman was the subject of seven civil lawsuits during his career, the city was found to have no record of three of the suits.66

One of the explanations for Fuhrman being allowed to stay on the force was this: "He knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct."67 This point assumes that there is such a line and implies that a high level of abuse was permissible within its bounds. In the absence of a functioning early warning system, the observation illustrates the need for oversight of police conduct that looks beyond the latest incident to a pattern that may span years and may manifest itself in a variety of ways, in contrast to an officer who hits someone in the same situation in incident after incident. Repeating one of the major findings of the Christopher Commission investigation, the report concludes, "[T]he Department must identify problem officers so investigations of this sort are not necessary in the future."68

and that proves Fuhrman did what? nothing

[William Anthony]

I understood enough to know that the DNA wasn't Mazzola's, or one of the children's -- that makes me understand more than our criminal jury.

Then you understood that the DNA was not a match to Simpson and that it was a statistical calculation that it could be Simpson's, correct? So which DNA expert testified that the blood was deposited at Bundy on the night of the murders?

[martin II]

"MR. DARDEN: Well, your Honor, the court may have already noticed, we have sat here and we have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it is clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who is watching these proceedings this morning. I think the Defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, among many, many other things. But at some point it gets to be too much and at some point I think this court, and I think the jury certainly as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case, and the real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, and not Mark Fuhrman. And what we have heard is that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide, genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples, he will find something to stop interracial couples, he wants to burn all African Americans or bomb African Americans. We have heard it and we have not disputed it. It is done. Okay? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today I think is done. Okay? The Goldmans shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this and we shouldn't have to hear any more of it. Okay? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury--we offered to stipulate last week or the week before, he used these word, Judge. We know it, you know it. Now the jury knows it. It is cumulative. The court ought to cut it off now under 352 and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It is time to get back to that.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly, your Honor. We are in fact trying the case of People versus O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested, he hasn't been in jail for fourteen months or fifteen months. This is the man who is on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what is important and we are going to link it up. What I would offer to do--and we have been mindful of your Honor's concerns under 352. And that is why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she would be cumulative--cumulative is the word, your Honor--of perhaps Kathleen Bell, so you didn't hear me call her. Roderic Hodge stands in a different position, your Honor. We have heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she, because of the tape, as the court is aware. Roderic Hodge stands differently, your Honor. As you recall from the offer of proof last week, he's the man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you will recall what--Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, "I told you we would get you" blank, and I think it becomes very relevant. Here is a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman so he is in a different position. It is very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The direct exam will be very brief and right to the point. And then I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it is cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again we have taken one morning, less than one morning, versus six months. We have had less than six weeks and now everything becomes cumulative.

And we are trying to pare it down, being mindful of your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I have indicated to you. He is the only witness"

I guess fate must have been on LHM when MF asked her about her computer, because she got a real life character to fit her screen play. I wonder how many people were angry that she exposed MF for MF.


William

than you verry much for this post

[William Anthony]

and that proves Fuhrman did what? nothing

What it doesn't prove is that he did not do anything wrong, only that there due to failed memories or flawed memories, they were unable to confirm.

Ah, I found the link.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE6D6123AF937A35757C0A96E9582 60

[William Anthony]

William

than you verry much for this post

You see the light and do not refuse to see it, as did Darden.

[William Anthony]

"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official said the five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting Mr. Fuhrman had expired. The beatings and abuses the detective spoke of took place before 1988.

''We're not saying he did nothing wrong,'' the person said, ''but we're barred from proving it in a court of law.''

How did they know when the beatings and abuses took place, if they did not happen? How do we feel about people who beat and abuse other people under color of authority, in comparison to spousal abuse?

[tv]

"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official said the five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting Mr. Fuhrman had expired. The beatings and abuses the detective spoke of took place before 1988.

''We're not saying he did nothing wrong,'' the person said, ''but we're barred from proving it in a court of law.''

How did they know when the beatings and abuses took place, if they did not happen? How do we feel about people who beat and abuse other people under color of authority, in comparison to spousal abuse?

'the official', the 'person'? It takes more than that to be credible. You asked how would they know when the alleged beatings and abuses took place? Have you ever heard of a lie?

[fgump2]

"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official said the five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting Mr. Fuhrman had expired. The beatings and abuses the detective spoke of took place before 1988.

''We're not saying he did nothing wrong,'' the person said, ''but we're barred from proving it in a court of law.''

How did they know when the beatings and abuses took place, if they did not happen? How do we feel about people who beat and abuse other people under color of authority, in comparison to spousal abuse?


These beatings took place in 1978. It was known as the Boyle Height Incident. It was investigated by a certain Police Dept lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, who came to the conclusion that the police had done nothing that they should be prosecuted or punished for. The got no demerits for it thanks to Johnnie Cochran.
Mark F had a psychological evaluation in the 1980s in which the psychologist said that he spun tall tales. He talked of being a trained killer in Viet Nam, but in fact was never in Viet Nam, and never saw combat duty. The police board in 1983 said that aside from the 1978 Boyle Height incident there were no citizen complaints against MF for excessive force. It didn't say about other complaints. I find it ironic that JC helped MF off the hook for violence in 1978, and then took advantage of MF in 1995. It is also true that MF said on the tapes that he didn't plant or move evidence on the Simpson case.

[tv]

there is no way I can reason with you -- MF was going to receive monies when/if LHM was able to sell the screenplay. LHM never advertised the screenplay as non-fiction. I didn't think he 'hobbled' anywhere. you obviously are like the loser juror who 'knew when he walked to the stand the first day that he was a 'skinhead' racist. I do think that in a career that spanned the years that Fuhrman's did, for the things to have been done and said against him, there would have been more than three witnesses and 0 to testify that he was not as the defense was portraying him.

you know, if I follow your logic that LHM was only the writer and Fuhrman was responsible for telling the story, then do you accept the if I DID IT book to be orenthal's confession?

Excellent point but some people like to have it both ways.

[Parker]

I've just come across this. It's a few months old so I hope it's OK.
O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

By Roger Friedman


Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson.

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

Shapiro is not completely removed from the Simpson world. He has remained very friendly with the famous children of his late friend, attorney Robert Kardashian. The famous children, of course, are the publicity hungry Kardashian sisters, daughters of Kris Kardashian who is married to former great athlete Bruce Jenner. Jenner’s son, Brody, of course, is also a press junkie, seeking fame for doing little of much value other than dating and having a reality show. It’s quite a group.

Anyway, few people may realize that the Kardashian girls — also reality TV stars, Playboy models, etc- are the daughters of O.J.’s best friend, a lawyer who helped him skirt the double murder charges but later claimed he had doubts about Simpson’s innocence. Kris Kardashian Jenner was at one time Nicole Simpson’s best friend.

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured.

[Parker]

I'm really interested in what a current criminal profiler would have to say about the murders or Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. So I've been looking into criminal profilers, Dale Hinman to be specific, and one of many places I've been led to is CourtTV. I've come across their transcripts of the criminal trial of OJ. I haven't paid any money to rebroadcast the original transcripts so I won't. William Anthony, I can only assume that if you're using the CourtTV transcripts you have paid for the license. Otherwise, if you can tell me where I can find the transcripts for free, I'd appreciate it. Anyway, I've saved them to my favorites so I can look at them.

I refer, as you do William Anthony, to Dr Park Dietz's testimony in the 402 on 7-11-96. Dr Dietz admits that he only looked at photos of the crime scene and the autopsy. He did not visit the crime scene. He did not view the victims. He admits that he saw no standardised tests on OJ and relied on third party statements to form his opinion.

I will say again that even though Dr Dietz has many credentials, he was not a criminal profiler as we know them today.

[Parker]

So, I'm still looking into criminal profiling and how it is presented in trials.
This is just the start for me. I've found this in the Vanderbilt Law Review
Vol 61:1:221. It came up during my search for Dale Hinman and OJ.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho
Tire were codified in the 2000 amendment of Rule 702. The rule
currently reads:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 requires an expert to consider all of the pertinent
evidence and alternative explanations to ensure that his conclusion is
sufficiently supported. The “principle” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the theory on which the expert bases his testimony is valid; this
prong must be satisfied whether the testimony is scientific, technical,
or based on experience. The “method” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the expert’s theories are derived through reliable means; thus,
scientific evidence must be derived through the scientific method and
non-scientific evidence must be derived through common sense, logic,
and practices common to the area of expertise in question. Finally,
Rule 702 requires experts to apply the valid principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the particular case.

IMO Dr Dietz's testimony doesn't follow these lines.

[William Anthony]

'the official', the 'person'? It takes more than that to be credible. You asked how would they know when the alleged beatings and abuses took place? Have you ever heard of a lie?

I am surprised that you do find the NY times credible but do find MF credible.

[William Anthony]

Excellent point but some people like to have it both ways.

I don't know how anyone can find something true with the title, If I did it, but you are free to believe he drove from Bundy naked.

[William Anthony]

I've just come across this. It's a few months old so I hope it's OK.
O.J. Lawyer: 'He's a Sociopath'
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

By Roger Friedman


Time heals some wounds, so Ronald Goldman’s dad, Fred, might be interested in this. I ran into O.J. Simpson’s former criminal attorney, Robert Shapiro, night before last at a party celebrating Mickey Rourke’s Golden Globe win. I asked Shapiro, who led the Simpson “Dream Team” in 1994-95 that got Simpson acquitted of double murder, what he thought of his former client in retrospect.

Shapiro was quick to respond. “He’s a sociopath,” Shapiro said, surprisingly. This was just after I told him of seeing F. Lee Bailey last fall, and that Bailey was still defending Simpson.

Did Shapiro always think Simpson was a sociopath, I wondered? Shapiro smiled. “What do you think?” he answered rhetorically.If someone relates this anecdote to Simpson, now at last in prison but not for the murders, he may well surmise that his staunchest former defender is finally ‘fessing up about his feelings. Too late, but still, it’s nice to know.

Shapiro is not completely removed from the Simpson world. He has remained very friendly with the famous children of his late friend, attorney Robert Kardashian. The famous children, of course, are the publicity hungry Kardashian sisters, daughters of Kris Kardashian who is married to former great athlete Bruce Jenner. Jenner’s son, Brody, of course, is also a press junkie, seeking fame for doing little of much value other than dating and having a reality show. It’s quite a group.

Anyway, few people may realize that the Kardashian girls — also reality TV stars, Playboy models, etc- are the daughters of O.J.’s best friend, a lawyer who helped him skirt the double murder charges but later claimed he had doubts about Simpson’s innocence. Kris Kardashian Jenner was at one time Nicole Simpson’s best friend.

What ties Shapiro to the Kardashians now? Robert tells me he’s backing Kim Kardashian in a Web site called shoedazzle.com. He says, “It’s discount high end shoes.” Well, it’s nice to see they’ve all stayed so friendly. The shoes are for women, so Bruno Magli — the brand O.J. wore the night of the murders — won’t be featured.

Yes, imho, the lawyer known for settling cases, which I might add you cannot do in criminal trials, was disgruntled, because he was demoted in the Simpson case, receiving very little credit and only playing a small part, who now has started a website for downloading wills and such, may have a reasons to say these things but it did not stop him from garnering some slight publicity as a member of the dream team. What training does he have as an expert to offer that opinion? All of this is just my opinion.

[William Anthony]

I'm really interested in what a current criminal profiler would have to say about the murders or Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. So I've been looking into criminal profilers, Dale Hinman to be specific, and one of many places I've been led to is CourtTV. I've come across their transcripts of the criminal trial of OJ. I haven't paid any money to rebroadcast the original transcripts so I won't. William Anthony, I can only assume that if you're using the CourtTV transcripts you have paid for the license. Otherwise, if you can tell me where I can find the transcripts for free, I'd appreciate it. Anyway, I've saved them to my favorites so I can look at them.

I refer, as you do William Anthony, to Dr Park Dietz's testimony in the 402 on 7-11-96. Dr Dietz admits that he only looked at photos of the crime scene and the autopsy. He did not visit the crime scene. He did not view the victims. He admits that he saw no standardised tests on OJ and relied on third party statements to form his opinion.

I will say again that even though Dr Dietz has many credentials, he was not a criminal profiler as we know them today.

You can assume what you will. He was called by the plaintiffs in the civil tria, to the best of my understandingl. Do you think that a judge has more experience and training and can decide who is qualified as an expert to testify than say you or me?

[William Anthony]

So, I'm still looking into criminal profiling and how it is presented in trials.
This is just the start for me. I've found this in the Vanderbilt Law Review
Vol 61:1:221. It came up during my search for Dale Hinman and OJ.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho
Tire were codified in the 2000 amendment of Rule 702. The rule
currently reads:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 requires an expert to consider all of the pertinent
evidence and alternative explanations to ensure that his conclusion is
sufficiently supported. The “principle” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the theory on which the expert bases his testimony is valid; this
prong must be satisfied whether the testimony is scientific, technical,
or based on experience. The “method” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the expert’s theories are derived through reliable means; thus,
scientific evidence must be derived through the scientific method and
non-scientific evidence must be derived through common sense, logic,
and practices common to the area of expertise in question. Finally,
Rule 702 requires experts to apply the valid principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the particular case.

IMO Dr Dietz's testimony doesn't follow these lines.

Don't you think that Dietz had the necessary requirements as a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise to satisfy the first prong of Rule 702 and was therefore able to offer his opinion through common sense, logic,
and practices common to the area of expertise in question or is it that his testimony supports the fact that Simpson was not the murderer, as he was saying that Simpson, in his opinion was not the type of person to commit the murders?

[William Anthony]

Q. Doctor, have you ever qualified to testify as an expert in court on a
similar opinion; that is, testifying as to motive, based on an analysis of the
crime scene and autopsy?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you cite to us some cases?

A. Of course. That comes up as part of nearly every homicide case that I
testify in.

So, backwards, from most recent homicide cases where we've talked about the
crime scene and motive, would include California_versus_Ernesto_ Anguiano,
where I testified in October of '96.

One was Wisconsin versus -- sorry; that one's not a homicide.

California_versus_Sally_McNeil, where I testified at trial in March of '96.

California_versus_Erik_Menendez, where I testified in February of '96.

California_versus_Richard_Davis, which is the Polly Klaas case. I testified at
trial in May of '96.

Q. Did you justify arriving -- determining -- trying to determine motive from
an analysis of the crime scene in the Klaas case?

A. Yes. In fact, that was the principal purpose of my participation in the
case.

United_States_versus_James_E._Swann,_Jr., where I testified at trial in
September '94.

Q. Please tell us how many others there are in the last, say, five years.

A. Nine others from that point back to the mid-90s.

Q. And each of those you were testifying -- part of your testimony had to do
with deriving motive from analysis of the crime scene and/or autopsy photos?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the other opinion you mentioned, opinion you said, assuming Mr. Simpson
is the perpetrator, trying to determine a likely motive that he would have had;
is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you -- what method did you use, or what did you do to arrive at
that opinion?

A. To the information that I already had from the crime scene and autopsy
information, I then added information specific to Mr. Simpson, which included
portions of his testimony; his prior statements; his writings; Nicole Simpson's
writings, including her diary; statements that were transcribed -- that is,
transcripts of statements made by witnesses; some transcribed trial testimony;
a 911 tape; and a surreptitiously made recording known as the Lally tape; a
transcript of the conversation during the so-called slow-speed chase between
Mr. Simpson and the law enforcement.

Q. Are those kinds of materials the kinds of materials that are typically
relied upon by forensic psychiatrists in assessing motive?

A. Yes.

Parker,

Do you think all the judges in all those cases were wrong? Whether or not he was qualified to give his opinion as to the type of person who could commit murder, we know that even though, he may have opined that Simpson had the motive, which you arguably say he shouldn't have been allowed to testify to, we also know that his opinion was that Simpson was not the type to commit murder and that opinion is the same as the most eminent authority on spousal abuse, don't we?

[Parker]

You can assume what you will. He was called by the plaintiffs in the civil tria, to the best of my understandingl. Do you think that a judge has more experience and training and can decide who is qualified as an expert to testify than say you or me?


No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

These beatings took place in 1978. It was known as the Boyle Height Incident. It was investigated by a certain Police Dept lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, who came to the conclusion that the police had done nothing that they should be prosecuted or punished for. The got no demerits for it thanks to Johnnie Cochran.
Mark F had a psychological evaluation in the 1980s in which the psychologist said that he spun tall tales. He talked of being a trained killer in Viet Nam, but in fact was never in Viet Nam, and never saw combat duty. The police board in 1983 said that aside from the 1978 Boyle Height incident there were no citizen complaints against MF for excessive force. It didn't say about other complaints. I find it ironic that JC helped MF off the hook for violence in 1978, and then took advantage of MF in 1995. It is also true that MF said on the tapes that he didn't plant or move evidence on the Simpson case.

Perhaps, the Justice Department had more resources than the police department, and perhaps, the Justice Department was not bound by the ties of the blue wall of silence and perhaps, the Justice Department was able to speak to officers who had retired and were no longer bound by the blue wall of silence, all of which, imho, would have made their investigation more credible. I feel that the magnificent one based his opinion on the report of the police department and perhaps, that is what caused him to become a defense lawyer fighting for those that had been abused by a part of the system to which he had been a part.

Of course MF said he didn't plant evidence, as the statute of limitations had not run out, as he told LHM not to use another incident for that very same reason.

[William Anthony]

No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

I did not say that he did not testify in the criminal trial. I said he was called by the plaintiffs in the civil trial. Do you have the civil trial transcripts for the date of November 7th, which is the testimony I cited?

[William Anthony]

No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

Does that no in your response mean that you believe you or me have more experience in determining who is qualified as an expert than the judges in those trials mentioned by Dietz?

[William Anthony]

No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

How and on what date?

[martin II]

No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

Civil trial testimony
THURSDAY, Nov. 7

Park Dietz, forensic psychiatrist

Dietz testified to his expertise in the area of forensic psychiatry citing his association with the FBI Profiling unit and his extensive training and teaching experience at Harvard and Johns Hopkins. In regard to Simpson, Dietz said he could safely conclude that Simpson would have continued to abuse Nicole Simpson, but that he would not necessarily have killed her.

[martin II]

No William. He gave evidence in the criminal trial.

I found no listing of his testimony in the criminal trial.

please give a link to his criminal trial testimony if you are so sure.

Date and who called him.

[William Anthony]

Civil trial testimony
THURSDAY, Nov. 7

Park Dietz, forensic psychiatrist

Dietz testified to his expertise in the area of forensic psychiatry citing his association with the FBI Profiling unit and his extensive training and teaching experience at Harvard and Johns Hopkins. In regard to Simpson, Dietz said he could safely conclude that Simpson would have continued to abuse Nicole Simpson, but that he would not necessarily have killed her.

Martin,

I could find nothing as it relates to Dietz in the criminal murder trial and don't know that he was allowed to offer an opinion in the civil trial as his testimony was given during a Frye hearing. However, his opinions are in the record for review in the civil trial.

[Parker]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

[martin II]

So, I'm still looking into criminal profiling and how it is presented in trials.
This is just the start for me. I've found this in the Vanderbilt Law Review
Vol 61:1:221. It came up during my search for Dale Hinman and OJ.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho
Tire were codified in the 2000 amendment of Rule 702. The rule
currently reads:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 requires an expert to consider all of the pertinent
evidence and alternative explanations to ensure that his conclusion is
sufficiently supported. The “principle” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the theory on which the expert bases his testimony is valid; this
prong must be satisfied whether the testimony is scientific, technical,
or based on experience. The “method” prong of Rule 702 requires
that the expert’s theories are derived through reliable means; thus,
scientific evidence must be derived through the scientific method and
non-scientific evidence must be derived through common sense, logic,
and practices common to the area of expertise in question. Finally,
Rule 702 requires experts to apply the valid principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the particular case.

IMO Dr Dietz's testimony doesn't follow these lines.


Wrong according to the civil trial judge.

[martin II]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

I am not sure what you mean by 'GAVE HIS EVIDENCE' as he did not have evidence to give.The prosecution gave evidence.

Now
There is no listing of him giving testimony in the criminal trial for the prosecution or the defence.
So can you please give a link to him testifying and where you got this info that he did so on 11/7/96 in the criminal trial?

[William Anthony]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

No, we are not joking, since the verdict in the criminal trial was rendered in October, 1995. Are you confused?:)

[William Anthony]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

This I believe is from the Vanderbilt Law Review Journal on criminal profiling meeting the standard of admissibility.

NOTES
Offender Profiling and Expert
Testimony: Scientifically Valid or
Glorified Results?

III. THE IMPERMISSIBLE ADMISSION OF OFFENDER PROFILING

Despite flaws in the fundamental logic underlying offender
profiling and the absence of any scientific study validating its
methodology, trial courts have admitted expert profiling testimony
routinely, and these decisions have been affirmed by some appellate
courts. Section A of this Part examines the validity of offender
profiling, as well as its general acceptance, and concludes that judges
should not admit this evidence as expert testimony under either Rule
702 or Frye. Section B discusses the different approaches adopted by
defendants and prosecutors who introduce expert offender profiling
testimony and surveys how courts have ruled on its admissibility.
Section C presents explanations for why offender profiling is admitted
as expert testimony despite its lack of evidentiary reliability.

[William Anthony]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

He gave his testimony on 11/7/96 not 7/11/96, unless he did so at a convenience store. Just joking trying to lighten the mood but your date is incorrect and so are your statements about which trial Dietz appeared in.

[weezer]

LOL -- so now the judges are right and know what they're doing. um-um-um -- wait -- these guys must mean only in cases where orenthal isn't found guilty! ;)

[William Anthony]

LOL -- so now the judges are right and know what they're doing. um-um-um -- wait -- these guys must mean only in cases where orenthal isn't found guilty! ;)

I never said the judges were right and good morning to you but I did ask who would be more qualified, based on education, training and experience, a judge or Parker and me, to make a decision as to who was qualified as an expert.

[Parker]

He gave his testimony on 11/7/96 not 7/11/96, unless he did so at a convenience store. Just joking trying to lighten the mood but your date is incorrect and so are your statements about which trial Dietz appeared in.

But it was '96. And the civil trial was when...? And the experts( William Anthony and Martin say)....? That's what, 12 years difference?

[William Anthony]

But it was '96. And the civil trial was when...? And the experts( William Anthony and Martin say)....? That's what, 12 years difference?

The civil trial was from October, 96 ending in February, 97. You simply made some mistake and there is no need for you to beat yourself up over them, don't you think that's correct? To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

[Parker]

No, I'm not beating myself up over anything.

I believe modern profiler techniques would help to solve this case.

However, I see that practically every other OJ forum on this site is locked down.

And I'm starting to ask myself why that is.

And I'm starting to guess that it's because of you William Anthony and you Martin.

[William Anthony]

I choose not to respond to inflammatory and accusative posts.

If we were right all of the time that would make us perfect

and that ends the discussion for me.

I don't think that the case has been reopened. :)

[Jayme K]

No, I'm not beating myself up over anything.

I believe modern profiler techniques would help to solve this case.

However, I see that practically every other OJ forum on this site is locked down.

And I'm starting to ask myself why that is.

And I'm starting to guess that it's because of you William Anthony and you Martin.

LOL, doesn't take long to figure that out! This forum is going to end up tanking again because of those two. But it never fails when you've got two guys with chips on their shoulder who try to beat up every new person that tries to come here and chat about their thoughts.

[martin II]

Park Dietz gave his evidence 7-11-96. Are both of you, William Anthony and Martin, trying to tell me that this is the date of the civil trial? You're joking, I guess.

THURSDAY, Nov. 7

Park Dietz, forensic psychiatrist

Dietz testified to his expertise in the area of forensic psychiatry citing his association with the FBI Profiling unit and his extensive training and teaching experience at Harvard and Johns Hopkins. In regard to Simpson, Dietz said he could safely conclude that Simpson would have continued to abuse Nicole Simpson, but that he would not necessarily have killed her.

are you suggesting that this record is wrong.It is from trial transcript civil trial.

[Jayme K]

you should consider giving it up imo

You are SO rude.

Where's your rebuttal to Judge Ito's words? I'm guessing you don't have one and the above response is kinda like a vintage Simpson deal - say something stupid when you've got nothing else.