Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

Please, stop the harassment, by asking me to post links to things I have not said and the lack of civility in the responses. Thank you.

[William Anthony]

I respectfully hope you're not holding your breath.

No, I thought that you were aware of the moderator's post, asking that we be respectful to each other and I thought you mentioned it a few times after your brief break from posting. I just thought that you might want to set the standard.

[martin II]

If one is interested in being informed, go to the drug rehab community not the gov. Asking the gov is silly.

[William Anthony]

If one is interested in being informed, go to the drug rehab community not the gov. Asking the gov is silly.

A poster asked me to supply a link that showed alcohol was an illegal drug from a government link. I never claimed it was an illegal drug and what government is going to say it is a crime when they operate State Liquor stores. :)

[weezer]

Please, stop the harassment, by asking me to post links to things I have not said and the lack of civility in the responses. Thank you.

oh -- sorry if you felt my responses lack civility. You posted as fact that you believe alcohol is a drug. I'm asking for a link to a government site (preferably DEA) that lists alcohol as an illegal drug. That should settle the debate, don't you think? I know how you like to have statements substantiated by links to facts --

[tv]

No, I thought that you were aware of the moderator's post, asking that we be respectful to each other and I thought you mentioned it a few times after your brief break from posting. I just thought that you might want to set the standard.

I've been subjected to insults, nastiness and bullying from you and martin for the last couple of days. I'm making an effort to comply with Deepwater's request but some days are more challenging than others.

[weezer]

A poster asked me to supply a link that showed alcohol was an illegal drug from a government link. I never claimed it was an illegal drug and what government is going to say it is a crime when they operate State Liquor stores. :)

uh -- that would be me in response to your statement that alcohol is a drug because you were upset that I posted the fact that on the night he butchered two human beings, orenthal james simpson had illegal drugs in his system.

[martin II]

I've been subjected to insults, nastiness and bullying from you and martin for the last couple of days. I'm making an effort to comply with Deepwater's request but some days are more challenging than others.

tv

i have not responded to most of your post and the 3-4 that i have have not been as you claim they were.your claim against me is not true.

[fgump2]

From the evidence a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence got on the socks through planting.

If that is a reasonable inference, why didn't Henry Lee explicitly say it? It looks to me like Mr. Lee was trying to imply that the evidence was tampered with, without actually bluntly saying that.

It annoyed me that Mr. Lee wouldn't lay cards on the table in terms of how he thought the jury and the public should interpret the evidence.

The prosecution was quite blunt about how the evidence should be interpreted. They said it meant that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer.

I think that most of us would be disappointed if we went to a doctor who had great credentials (as Henry Lee did) and who looked at test results, for cancer, and then said. "all I can say is. something wrong here. This should not be". I would be most unhappy about this kind of diagnosis.

I think the main thing wrong was that too many people took Henry Lee and the rest of the defense team seriously.

[tv]

uh -- that would be me in response to your statement that alcohol is a drug because you were upset that I posted the fact that on the night he butchered two human beings, orenthal james simpson had illegal drugs in his system.

Let's not forget that it was okay for him to have marijuana in his system because it's approved for some people to use as medication. Besides that, I don't believe it was legally approved for that use until 1996 after Ron and Nicole had been dead for two years.

[weezer]

Let's not forget that it was okay for him to have marijuana in his system because it's approved for some people to use as medication. Besides that, I don't believe it was legally approved for that use until 1996 after Ron and Nicole had been dead for two years.

maybe that was his way of cutting back on the hard drugs?

[weezer]

If that is a reasonable inference, why didn't Henry Lee explicitly say it? It looks to me like Mr. Lee was trying to imply that the evidence was tampered with, without actually bluntly saying that.

It annoyed me that Mr. Lee wouldn't lay cards on the table in terms of how he thought the jury and the public should interpret the evidence.

The prosecution was quite blunt about how the evidence should be interpreted. They said it meant that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer.

I think that most of us would be disappointed if we went to a doctor who had great credentials (as Henry Lee did) and who looked at test results, for cancer, and then said. "all I can say is. something wrong here. This should not be". I would be most unhappy about this kind of diagnosis.

I think the main thing wrong was that too many people took Henry Lee and the rest of the defense team seriously.

I believe that Lee tailored his testimony to suit the defense demands. I've always wondered why Lee didn't do any testing or if he did, why the results were never released that would prove the planting or someone else did it.

[fgump2]

A poster asked me to supply a link that showed alcohol was an illegal drug from a government link. I never claimed it was an illegal drug and what government is going to say it is a crime when they operate State Liquor stores. :)

As far as illegal drugs and the Simpson case is, according to Bugliosi's book on page 185 Jim Brown said that Simpson had a cocaine problem.

Jim Brown is a black man who was a pro football player, and considered a black militant by many. Jim Brown's opinion on SImpson's drug use was about the same as Nicole and some of Nicole's friends.

[tv]

maybe that was his way of cutting back on the hard drugs?

Now, weezer, do you have any proof that OJS ever tried to cut back on the hard drugs? :D

[weezer]

Now, weezer, do you have any proof that OJS ever tried to cut back on the hard drugs? :D

not really -- I just thought it was a reasonable inference that if he had been known to use cocaine but it wasn't in his system and marijuana was. . . .But then, you know that I don't know anything about 'DRUGE's. hahahaha

[weezer]

As far as illegal drugs and the Simpson case is, according to Bugliosi's book on page 185 Jim Brown said that Simpson had a cocaine problem.

Jim Brown is a black man who was a pro football player, and considered a black militant by many. Jim Brown's opinion on SImpson's drug use was about the same as Nicole and some of Nicole's friends.

I always thought that was what was in the bag he hid in the trash can and sent AC back to fetch for him. (the day after he beat Nicole)

[tv]

not really -- I just thought it was a reasonable inference that if he had been known to use cocaine but it wasn't in his system and marijuana was. . . .But then, you know that I don't know anything about 'DRUGE's. hahahaha

That's okay. We have a poster who seems to know all there is to know about druges and makes sure we stay informed. hahaha

[tv]

I always thought that was what was in the bag he hid in the trash can and sent AC back to fetch for him. (the day after he beat Nicole)

Oh yeah, me too. He didn't want the police to find his stash at the house.

[GreenIce]

I read an interesting article on face reading by Malcom Gladwell about face reading. The articlethat includes a part about Kato's testimony that indicates he was a hostile witness, and M. Clark was justified. The article quotes Gladwell and a psychologist name Paul Ekman:
Ekman slipped a tape taken from the O.J. Simpson trial into the VCR. It was of Kato Kaelin, Simpson's shaggy-haired house guest, being examined by Marcia Clark, one of the prosecutors in the case. Kaelin sits in the witness box, with his trademark vacant look. Clark asks a hostile question. Kaelin leans forward and answers softly. "Did you see that?" Ekman asked me. I saw nothing, just Kato being Kato-- harmless and passive. Ekman stopped the tape, rewound it, and played it back in slow motion. On the screen, Kaelin moved forward to answer the question, and in that fraction of a second his face was utterly transformed... " Ekman stopped the tape and played it again, peering at the screen. "You know, he looks like a snarling dog."

Since I don't know what Clark was asking, I can't give it much interpetation, but it does seem like hostility. I realize that different people can spin this different ways; especially if they had the full context of this testimony. Kato later wrote a book in which he made Simpson look rather bad; although I didn't read the book. I think Kato hoped Simpson could get him in the movie business, and the murders derailed that. If Calrk really mistreated Kato, it is odd he didn't mention that in his book. I think he was angry because he saw his movie career going down the tube.

I also think that Greenice has a record of reading things into others motives that aren't there. For example, Greenice wrote that during the bronco chase SImpson probably felt guilty about not doing more to protect Nicole. I see no evidence of that. Simpson had nothing nice to say about her, and tried to shift the blame for the relationship problems on to her, he wrote in his farewell note: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words whatever problems there were in the relationship were Nicole’s fault, not his.

fgump2,

What was the only thing the DA's need Kato for? It was for the noise and the time of the noise. Nothing else mattered. Kato pissed off Clark for refusing to testify in the grand jury until he had a lawyer. According to Clark, in her book, she says that Kato never would say what he thought it was some one behind his wall or someone crashing into his wall and when asked what he was looking for, she said he kept saying he didn't know.

Clark had the perfect opportunity to impeach Kato with regards to a book deal. She did not do so. She only needed him for the noise and the time. She planned all along to make him a hostile witness and IMO, it backfired on her. IMO, Clark hated Kato for many reasons, however, the main being, IMO, his refusal to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. She was embarrased by him.

Simpson did the right thing in the 1989 incident and he did take respondsibility for it. Please remember, Nicole's written statement nor the transcripts of the no contest plea have ever been released. Where does he blame Nicole for all the problems in their marriage?

I think there is an abundence of evidence that shows Simpson's guilty about not protecting Nicole. While he did not mention this in the letter, he was told by Cora Fischman that he needed to get Nicole and the kids away from Bundy a few weeks before the murders. Had he listened to Cora, then Nicole would still be alive today. Simpson knew his cheating was the main reason for their failed marriage and the source of most of their fights. IMO, had Simpson been faithful, he and Nicole would still be married today.

If Nicole is considered a battered wife because Simpson got physical with her, then Simpson is a battered husband when Nicole got physical with him. Nicole's gender does not eliminate her or making it impossible for her to have battered Simpson.

Simpson has said many things about Nicole. However, Nicole, like everyone else is human and like everyone else, there were situations that she could have handled better. The truth about someone's behavior is not always nice nor can certain behavior or circumstances be ignored. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I would like to know more about the pictures of Simpson wearing gloves that were taken at different times. I thought that there were some pictures of him that were gloves that were similar enough to the murder gloves that they might have been the same type of glove, same model number for example. I realize you are raising a question about whether another company could have made a glove close enough that it would be hard to distinguish it. DO you know where to find any such photos? I think at least one was made at a game Simpson was broadcasting.

fgump2,

What would be interesting is see photos of all the commentators were wearing gloves while working for NBC. Did they all wear the same make of glove? Were the commentators provided gloves by the network?

Also, I wonder if the police ever got a search warrant for Simpson's apartment in New York. He lived in NY a good part of year. IMO, had they found the same make and model of gloves in his NY apartment, that would have been compelling evidence, IMO.

It would have been interesting to see any testimony regarding people wearing a heating device that was placed on the inside of the glove.

[weezer]

fgump2,

What was the only thing the DA's need Kato for? It was for the noise and the time of the noise. Nothing else mattered. Kato pissed off Clark for refusing to testify in the grand jury until he had a lawyer. According to Clark, in her book, she says that Kato never would say what he thought it was some one behind his wall or someone crashing into his wall and when asked what he was looking for, she said he kept saying he didn't know.
Kato wrote in his book that he was afraid of orenthal

Clark had the perfect opportunity to impeach Kato with regards to a book deal. She did not do so. She only needed him for the noise and the time. She planned all along to make him a hostile witness and IMO, it backfired on her. IMO, Clark hated Kato for many reasons, however, the main being, IMO, his refusal to testify in the grand jury without a lawyer. She was embarrased by him.
what book deal?
Link please to she "planned all along to make him a hostile witness"

Simpson did the right thing in the 1989 incident and he did take respondsibility for it. Please remember, Nicole's written statement nor the transcripts of the no contest plea have ever been released. Where does he blame Nicole for all the problems in their marriage?
LOL -- he never took responsibility -- he blamed Nicole.

I think there is an abundence of evidence that shows Simpson's guilty about not protecting Nicole. While he did not mention this in the letter, he was told by Cora Fischman that he needed to get Nicole and the kids away from Bundy a few weeks before the murders. Had he listened to Cora, then Nicole would still be alive today. Simpson knew his cheating was the main reason for their failed marriage and the source of most of their fights. IMO, had Simpson been faithful, he and Nicole would still be married today.
Nicole would be alive today if orenthal james simpson hadn't murdered her.
I'm sure the wh*ring around by him didn't help matters but I bet the abuse played a bigger role.

If Nicole is considered a battered wife because Simpson got physical with her, then Simpson is a battered husband when Nicole got physical with him. Nicole's gender does not eliminate her or making it impossible for her to have battered Simpson.
Link please to Nicole got 'physical with him.'

Simpson has said many things about Nicole. However, Nicole, like everyone else is human and like everyone else, there were situations that she could have handled better. The truth about someone's behavior is not always nice nor can certain behavior or circumstances be ignored. IMO.

Yes, orenthal has said many things about Nicole -- most of them ugly and derogatory. No one has elevated her to the status that the NG's have elevated orenthal. sad.

[GreenIce]

As far as illegal drugs and the Simpson case is, according to Bugliosi's book on page 185 Jim Brown said that Simpson had a cocaine problem.

Jim Brown is a black man who was a pro football player, and considered a black militant by many. Jim Brown's opinion on SImpson's drug use was about the same as Nicole and some of Nicole's friends.

fgump2,

Please remember two things about drugs---you don't have to be a user to be involved with drugs.

Also, when it comes to the drug business, guilt by association is common place. While Nicole may not have been using drugs with Faye, that does not mean she did not know that Faye was doing them in her house.

IMO, if the DA's really believed that Simpson had drug problem, they would have jumped all over it and used it against him at the trial. IMO, the DA's did not want to go any where near the subject of drugs.

[tv]

Yes, orenthal has said many things about Nicole -- most of them ugly and derogatory. No one has elevated her to the status that the NG's have elevated orenthal. sad.

Very sad. They've left no stone unturned in trashing her character. The NGs are following the example set by OJ Simpson himself. they worry about the children seeing things we say about OJS but what about the relentless character assassination of their mother?

[weezer]

fgump2,

What would be interesting is see photos of all the commentators were wearing gloves while working for NBC. Did they all wear the same make of glove? Were the commentators provided gloves by the network?
I'm sure had the network given gloves to all of their commentators, that testimony would have been heard.

Also, I wonder if the police ever got a search warrant for Simpson's apartment in New York. He lived in NY a good part of year. IMO, had they found the same make and model of gloves in his NY apartment, that would have been compelling evidence, IMO.
Not sure what orenthal's NY apt would have to do with a murder case in CA. But you're right, it would have been interesting to see what he kept in his apt.

It would have been interesting to see any testimony regarding people wearing a heating device that was placed on the inside of the glove.

I'm confused with this last one -- what would people wearing a heating device inside a glove have to do with this case?

[weezer]

fgump2,

Please remember two things about drugs---you don't have to be a user to be involved with drugs.

Also, when it comes to the drug business, guilt by association is common place. While Nicole may not have been using drugs with Faye, that does not mean she did not know that Faye was doing them in her house.
of course Nicole knew Faye was using -- that's why she put together the intervention.

IMO, if the DA's really believed that Simpson had drug problem, they would have jumped all over it and used it against him at the trial. IMO, the DA's did not want to go any where near the subject of drugs.

I'm confused again -- the NG's continue to say that orenthal wasn't on trial for domestic abuse but you believe he should have been on trial for drugs?

[GreenIce]

If that is a reasonable inference, why didn't Henry Lee explicitly say it? It looks to me like Mr. Lee was trying to imply that the evidence was tampered with, without actually bluntly saying that.

It annoyed me that Mr. Lee wouldn't lay cards on the table in terms of how he thought the jury and the public should interpret the evidence.

The prosecution was quite blunt about how the evidence should be interpreted. They said it meant that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer.

I think that most of us would be disappointed if we went to a doctor who had great credentials (as Henry Lee did) and who looked at test results, for cancer, and then said. "all I can say is. something wrong here. This should not be". I would be most unhappy about this kind of diagnosis.

I think the main thing wrong was that too many people took Henry Lee and the rest of the defense team seriously.

fgump2,

Dr. Lee, like Dr. Baden or any other top notch expert will always, always make it clear to the side who "hired" them--they are not advocates for either side. They will give their reports and let the cards fall where they may.

The DA's wanted the jury to forget that there were two sides of every piece of evidence. Clark denounced her own witnesses in the closing arguments, and not just Mark Fuhrman.

The only "defense" the DA's had was "human error" or "believe me because I am a DA and all DA's wear white hats".

Dr. Lee never attempted to explain how or what happened with the wet transfers, only that if there were 7 swatches that were put away wet, then there should have been 7 wet transfers. He could not explain why only 4 of the 7 showed wet transfers.

Also, the wet transfers were of a different pattern then the swatches--that
was Gary Sims discovery, I think.

In order to be a fair trial observer and be able to discuss this case or any other case for that matter, seriously? Isn't evidence a serious matter? The defense beat the DA's by using the DA's own witnesses and experts. The defense never was on run or looked like they were in a panic, they were never on the "defensive" however, the DA's were on the defensive side for the whole trial, IMO. What did they have spend so much time on their own experts mistakes?

[weezer]

fgump2,

Dr. Lee, like Dr. Baden or any other top notch expert will always, always make it clear to the side who "hired" them--they are not advocates for either side. They will give their reports and let the cards fall where they may.
Except of course, we learned in the civil trial that Dr. Lee had tailored his testimony to the defense.

The DA's wanted the jury to forget that there were two sides of every piece of evidence. Clark denounced her own witnesses in the closing arguments, and not just Mark Fuhrman.

The only "defense" the DA's had was "human error" or "believe me because I am a DA and all DA's wear white hats".
and the only defense orenthal had was 'forget my hair, blood, fiber, history of abuse, threats -- believe me when I say some other dude did it.'

Dr. Lee never attempted to explain how or what happened with the wet transfers, only that if there were 7 swatches that were put away wet, then there should have been 7 wet transfers. He could not explain why only 4 of the 7 showed wet transfers.
which shows exactly how Lee tailored his testimony to the defense. You should read his testimony in the civil trial -- he explains it perfectly and guess what? there was nothing sinister done by LE.

Also, the wet transfers were of a different pattern then the swatches--that
was Gary Sims discovery, I think.
Link please to this statement.

In order to be a fair trial observer and be able to discuss this case or any other case for that matter, seriously? Isn't evidence a serious matter? The defense beat the DA's by using the DA's own witnesses and experts. The defense never was on run or looked like they were in a panic, they were never on the "defensive" however, the DA's were on the defensive side for the whole trial, IMO. What did they have spend so much time on their own experts mistakes?

the defense 'beat' the DA's by knowing their audience and using it to their advantage. too bad for orenthal and his dream team, the rest of America understood orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings and was set free by a jury with their own agenda. imo

[GreenIce]

Very sad. They've left no stone unturned in trashing her character. The NGs are following the example set by OJ Simpson himself. they worry about the children seeing things we say about OJS but what about the relentless character assassination of their mother?

TV,

If a person does drugs, does that mean they are a bad person? A bad parent? A bad friend? The Simpsons lived a world where drugs were offered like coctails during a social gathering. There is no evidence that Nicole or Simpson were addicted to any drugs.

However, even Nicole's close friends were worried about her about behavior in the last few months or weeks of her life. She was not the "same" Nicole. So what caused this drastic change in Nicole? Isn't it a fair question to ask if drugs or alcohol were involved? Or perhaps it was nothing more then exhaustion that finally took its toll and Nicole ended up being so sick, she was bed ridden for a few days.

IMO, Sydney and Justin have probably read or have been told of countless attacks on both of their parents---however, they know what is true and what isn't true.

When did Simpson trash Nicole? What did he say that trashed her? If it is in regards to the civil trial, well Petrocelli was asking the questions, what was he supposed to do? Not answer them?

Was Simpson the only one who trashed Nicole? Did her friends trash her?

[weezer]

TV,

If a person does drugs, does that mean they are a bad person? A bad parent? A bad friend? The Simpsons lived a world where drugs were offered like coctails during a social gathering. There is no evidence that Nicole or Simpson were addicted to any drugs.
on the night she was murdered, Nicole Brown had NO drugs in her system. on the night orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he DID have drugs in his system.

However, even Nicole's close friends were worried about her about behavior in the last few months or weeks of her life. She was not the "same" Nicole. So what caused this drastic change in Nicole? Isn't it a fair question to ask if drugs or alcohol were involved? Or perhaps it was nothing more then exhaustion that finally took its toll and Nicole ended up being so sick, she was bed ridden for a few days.
Nicole's 'friends' did just as she said they would -- they sold her out. Again, on the night she was butchered by orenthal james simpson, Nicole Brown had NO drugs in her system so is seems unlikely that drugs were involved. Nicole ran every day -- I can't imagine anyone with an alcohol problem being able to do that. Maybe it was having to deal with her abuser who continued to stalk and torment her and/or her 'friend' who used her to cover up her own adulterous affair.

IMO, Sydney and Justin have probably read or have been told of countless attacks on both of their parents---however, they know what is true and what isn't true.
Sydney did say she knew -- remember the 911 call she made?

When did Simpson trash Nicole? What did he say that trashed her? If it is in regards to the civil trial, well Petrocelli was asking the questions, what was he supposed to do? Not answer them?
always the excuses for orenthal's poor behavior.

Was Simpson the only one who trashed Nicole? Did her friends trash her?

her friends believe orenthal murdered her.

[tv]

TV,

If a person does drugs, does that mean they are a bad person? A bad parent? A bad friend? The Simpsons lived a world where drugs were offered like coctails during a social gathering. There is no evidence that Nicole or Simpson were addicted to any drugs.

However, even Nicole's close friends were worried about her about behavior in the last few months or weeks of her life. She was not the "same" Nicole. So what caused this drastic change in Nicole? Isn't it a fair question to ask if drugs or alcohol were involved? Or perhaps it was nothing more then exhaustion that finally took its toll and Nicole ended up being so sick, she was bed ridden for a few days.

IMO, Sydney and Justin have probably read or have been told of countless attacks on both of their parents---however, they know what is true and what isn't true.

When did Simpson trash Nicole? What did he say that trashed her? If it is in regards to the civil trial, well Petrocelli was asking the questions, what was he supposed to do? Not answer them?

Was Simpson the only one who trashed Nicole? Did her friends trash her?

The issue with the drugs comes in because Nicole is always accused of being a heavy drug user by the NGs. There is no proof that she was involved with anything more than occasional recreational drug use while there is a great deal that indicates OJS was more than a casual user. I don't recall any of her friends saying that she was having behavorial changes due to drug use or even that they speculated that was a problem with her.

Simpson has trashed Nicole from the day after the murders and is still trashing her. He trashed her during the civil trial, in interviews and in his 'If I Did It' book. Have you read his deposition and testimony in the civil trial?

[bobaugust]

How do you know which testimony was mistaken and why would you think that Park's memory worked differently than everyone else, when he admitted the events were fresher in his mind when he first gave testimony, as opposed to two and half years later, IIRC. You say corrected and I say changed and Park admitted that Petro and others molded his testimony.

Yes, and like you said of Lang that he never testified to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked, kato never testified to stopping and standing, because he was never asked but when Park was asked he told us that he saw Kato stop and stand. Kato was asked and denied stopping before completing his first cursory search. So, you see I do not need to fantasize, just review ALL the testimony.

We know Park was mistaken when he thought that Kaelin remained on the Ashford pathway where it met the driveway after he saw him come from behind the house. We know that from Kaelin’s testimony that after he came from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway to the driveway he continued on to the garage.

What I said was completely different then what you have said. When I said that Lange never testified to seeing blood in the Bronco because he was never asked I was incorrect that he was never asked, but I never claimed that Lange saw blood in the Bronco because he wasn’t asked.

You claim that Kaelin did some things that you fantasized and then you argue that because Kaelin was never asked what you fantasize he did that somehow means to you that’s evidence that he did what you fantasized. Your argument is completely ridiculous and you know it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Whether you see it or not or as you like to say comprehend it or not, Mr. Baker trapped Park, when Park testified on direct that he saw Kato walk up the driveway to the gate control box and then Mr. Baker got him to say that he did not see Kato until he was at the gate control box and he never saw Kato walk in any direction. Whether Baker said anything about it in his closing is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue of what the testimony was. As I have said not all people need to have everything spelled out for them. Park said he was looking at the dashboard and forgot that he previously testified that he had gotten out of the car and walked to the intercom and after speaking to Simpson kato opened the gate for him in twenty to thirty seconds.

All Baker did was reaffirm the fact that Park didn’t see what Kaelin did before he saw him go the gate control box. Nothing Park said in response to Baker’s questions changed or contradicted what he had previously testified he did and Baker never claimed they did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why do I constantly have to remind you or what you said?

I agree with Petrocelli that Dr. Cotton’s degradation tests conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her blood reference sample.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you go back and extrapolate from Park's ever changing testimony, he waited thirty seconds before hanging up with his boss after seeing someone believed to be Simpson enter his home and thirty seconds before going to the intercom, one minute. He then testified to seeing Kato "at the gate control box in a minute, as he looked up from the dashboard he had been watching for that minute. THIS MEANS THAT HE SAW KATO AT THE GATE CONTROL BOX BEFORE GOING TO THE INTERCOM AND THEN WHY WOULD HE GO TO THE INTERCOM OR HE FORGOT HIS PREVIOUS TESTIMONY DURING THE COACHING, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST LOGICAL. :)

You are confusing yourself. Park never said he was looking at the dashboard for a minute, he said after he saw Simpson enter his house he was a little bit more relaxed and wasn’t looking through the gate any more, he was looking at the dashboard while he talked on the phone.

Nothing Park said in response to Baker’s questions changed or contradicted what he had previously testified he did and Baker never claimed they did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

No you have not conclusively proved that Nicole's blood on the sock could not have have come from her reference sample. Gary Sims, an expert in this field testified that he could not testify to how and when the blood got on the sock.

Marcia Clark wrote in her book that Dr. Baden could not be sure if there was blood on the sock because he was not allowed to use the high intensity lighting she said was needed.

Bottom line, VA had, at one time or another, had all three reference samples. VA has been caught and exposed as a liar on several key issues, to include his lie about how and who he got Ron and Nicole's reference sample done. VA has training in blood collecting evidence, had access to the lab.

Dr. Cotton's testimony in the civil trial means nothing---it was the criminal trial that matter and he job was to determine who's DNA it was, not where it came from, as from a reference sample or from another "jar" of blood that VA and Lange helped Dr. Golden collect.

You have been asked for the degree of medical certainity on this issue, you have provided none. You have been asked regarding other experts, would they, who also worked on this case would concur with Dr. Cotton's opininon.

Dr. Cotton never testified how and when the blood got on the sock, it was her opinon that it did not come from the reference sample, but again, if this was the case, where was she during the criminal trial?

The DA's spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on the criminal trial, they could not prove how and when the blood got on the socks.

Petrocelli asking Dr. Cotton to make a finding on this issue speaks volumes, he should have picked an actual expert, not a left over witness who was clearly in the DA's camp who was embarrased by her own testimony when it came to her company. She had axe to grind. IMO.

GreenIce, I never said I proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock didn’t come from her reference sample; I said Dr. Cotton’s degradation test results proved that.

Bottom line there is no evidence Vannatter tampered with or lied about handling the reference samples. He was part of the chain of custody.

Dr. Cotton presented documented test results from the degradation testing she performed that clearly showed how degraded Nicole’s reference sample was compared to Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

From the evidence a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence got on the socks through planting.

The evidence is that Nicole’s fresh blood got on Simpson’s sock when Nicole was killed.

[bobaugust]

The amount of EDTA found in the sock stain was a thousand times what should have been found or, expected to have been found, if you will. :)

The amount of EDTA that contaminated the evidence samples during the third test Martz conducted was 1000 time less than the amount of EDTA in Nicole’s reference sample.

[bobaugust]

Nothing says that the blood on the socks was not planted and we have had that discussion and the testimony on Cotton's cross just recently. :)

Nothing says the blood on the socks was planted.

[William Anthony]

A poster asked me to supply a link that showed alcohol was an illegal drug from a government link. I never claimed it was an illegal drug and what government is going to say it is a crime when they operate State Liquor stores.:) I am not required to post a link to something I did not say, according to my understanding of the rules and to continue to ask is harassment and causing me distress.

[William Anthony]

I've been subjected to insults, nastiness and bullying from you and martin for the last couple of days. I'm making an effort to comply with Deepwater's request but some days are more challenging than others.

I have not seen anyone insult you, be nasty to you or bully you but I am aware that you make those claims. Perhaps, you should place us ignore, as the moderator suggested, if that is how you feel.

That's okay. We have a poster who seems to know all there is to know about druges and makes sure we stay informed. hahaha by tvdinner

[William Anthony]

tv

i have not responded to most of your post and the 3-4 that i have have not been as you claim they were.your claim against me is not true.

A wise decision, IMHO, and I will do likewise.

[William Anthony]

If that is a reasonable inference, why didn't Henry Lee explicitly say it? It looks to me like Mr. Lee was trying to imply that the evidence was tampered with, without actually bluntly saying that.

It annoyed me that Mr. Lee wouldn't lay cards on the table in terms of how he thought the jury and the public should interpret the evidence.

The prosecution was quite blunt about how the evidence should be interpreted. They said it meant that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer.

I think that most of us would be disappointed if we went to a doctor who had great credentials (as Henry Lee did) and who looked at test results, for cancer, and then said. "all I can say is. something wrong here. This should not be". I would be most unhappy about this kind of diagnosis.

I think the main thing wrong was that too many people took Henry Lee and the rest of the defense team seriously.

I think that if we went to a doctor that suspected cancer in some part of the body he would send us to a doctor who specialized in treating cancer or that particular part of the body, if that was not the doctor's area of expertise. A doctor can look at x-rays and see something wrong that he suspects as cancer but cannot say definitely that it is until further testing has been done.

I think the main thing that was wrong was that the prosecution did not take its case serious enough. They claimed to have a mountain of evidence, which the defense team exposed as less than an ant hill.

[William Anthony]

Let me set the record straight. I have never said it was alright that Simpson had a trace of marijuana, which was prescribed for some with arthritis as Simpson had by the people of California passage of proposition 15, but simply pointed to that fact.

[William Anthony]

As far as illegal drugs and the Simpson case is, according to Bugliosi's book on page 185 Jim Brown said that Simpson had a cocaine problem.

Jim Brown is a black man who was a pro football player, and considered a black militant by many. Jim Brown's opinion on SImpson's drug use was about the same as Nicole and some of Nicole's friends.

What is your point????

[William Anthony]

Ah, when the evidence is disputed and allows for an inference to be drawn that is favorable to Simpson, blame the jury and snidely play the race card, although the jury's agenda to me was seeing that a person was not convicted on flimsy evidence and possibly corrupt LE activities.

[William Anthony]

There were those that believed the earth was flat, which didn't make it true.

[William Anthony]

We know Park was mistaken when he thought that Kaelin remained on the Ashford pathway where it met the driveway after he saw him come from behind the house. We know that from Kaelin’s testimony that after he came from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway to the driveway he continued on to the garage. (What we are you talking about? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What we know if you are saying that Park was mistaken, which I agree with, is that he was mistaken in the testimony where he said he saw Kato walk from behind the house down the pathway and stop, because Kato said he ran and did not stop and, therefore, the logical inference is that Park did not see Kato when he ran from behind the house, down the Ashford pathway and driveway and to the garage area.)

What I said was completely different then what you have said. When I said that Lange never testified to seeing blood in the Bronco because he was never asked I was incorrect that he was never asked, but I never claimed that Lange saw blood in the Bronco because he wasn’t asked. (I have never claimed that Kato stopped after his first cursory search but I have noted that from the evidence, Park's testimony, a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did. Are you saying that there was no blood in the Bronco or are you relying on the testimony of others to say there was blood in the Bronco even though you claimed, which I felt compelled to correct, that Lang was never asked?)

You claim that Kaelin did some things that you fantasized and then you argue that because Kaelin was never asked what you fantasize he did that somehow means to you that’s evidence that he did what you fantasized. Your argument is completely ridiculous and you know it.

bobaugust

What is ridiculous, insulting and a personal attack is your claim that I claimed something when I have repeatedly informed you that it is not my claim but a reasonable inference I drew from all the testimony.

[William Anthony]

All Baker did was reaffirm the fact that Park didn’t see what Kaelin did before he saw him go the gate control box. Nothing Park said in response to Baker’s questions changed or contradicted what he had previously testified he did and Baker never claimed they did.

bobaugust

I have posted the testimony where Parl contradicted what he, Park, said on direct. Because you don't see it or fail to comprehend it, as you like to say, doesn't mean it did not happen. :)

[William Anthony]

I agree with Petrocelli that Dr. Cotton’s degradation tests conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her blood reference sample.

bobaugust

Can I take that to mean that you don't agree with the remainder of Petro's braggadocios claim?

[William Anthony]

you are confusing yourself. Park never said he was looking at the dashboard for a minute, he said after he saw simpson enter his house he was a little bit more relaxed and wasn’t looking through the gate any more, he was looking at the dashboard while he talked on the phone.

Nothing park said in response to baker’s questions changed or contradicted what he had previously testified he did and baker never claimed they did.

Bobaugust

wth?

A. No, not the whole time. After the person went into the house, I figured somebody was there and I was a little bit more relaxed and wasn't even looking through the gate any more, I was looking at the dashboard and just talking on the phone.

Q. So you have a clear recollection as you sit here now, some two and a half years later, that it wasn't any concern of yours to see where Mr. Kaelin went, to see whether or not he was going to open the gate, and now you got relaxed and you have a recollection of looking at the dashboard. Had the dashboard moved in the interim?

A. No.

Q. All right. And there was no -- there certainly wouldn't have been, Mr. Park, any additional information on the dashboard that hadn't been there for the minute you'd been up there, correct?

A. True.

Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you?

A. About a minute.

Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right? (The only place he testified to looking other than through the gate was at the dashboard)

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't know what happened to Mr. Kaelin during the whole other time, right?

A. Don't really care.

Q. Okay. And whether you care or not, you don't know?

A. Don't know.

Q. And in that 60 seconds you hadn't observed him walking in any direction, north, south, east, or west, or any variations thereof, true?

A. True.

Extrapolating from the time of his previous testimony that 60 seconds would have been when he waited thirty seconds to hang up with his boss and thirty more seconds for someone to open the gate for him.

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that Nicole’s fresh blood got on Simpson’s sock when Nicole was killed.

The inference is, through all the testimony/evidence, the socks were not in the bedroom when they should have been, the amount of EDTA is more than what is found in unpreserved human blood and the blood was not seen on the socks until three weeks after they were collected, that the blood was planted, which is the inference I drew.

[William Anthony]

The amount of EDTA that contaminated the evidence samples during the third test Martz conducted was 1000 time less than the amount of EDTA in Nicole’s reference sample.

And a thousand time what should have been found in unpreserved human blood.

[William Anthony]

Nothing says the blood on the socks was planted.

The evidence does.:)

[martin II]

If that is a reasonable inference, why didn't Henry Lee explicitly say it? It looks to me like Mr. Lee was trying to imply that the evidence was tampered with, without actually bluntly saying that.

It annoyed me that Mr. Lee wouldn't lay cards on the table in terms of how he thought the jury and the public should interpret the evidence.

The prosecution was quite blunt about how the evidence should be interpreted. They said it meant that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer.

I think that most of us would be disappointed if we went to a doctor who had great credentials (as Henry Lee did) and who looked at test results, for cancer, and then said. "all I can say is. something wrong here. This should not be". I would be most unhappy about this kind of diagnosis.

I think the main thing wrong was that too many people took Henry Lee and the rest of the defense team seriously.

i think that Dr Lee is quite strict in his answers to questions.usually he gives his opinions on the scientific facts.not necessarly what he thinks happened. it is them up to the listner to form opinions.

[martin II]

I have not seen anyone insult you, be nasty to you or bully you but I am aware that you make those claims. Perhaps, you should place us ignore, as the moderator suggested, if that is how you feel.

Well in response to that poster i and other family members attanded Ananon as a result of a family members addiction problems.That is where i was educated to various drugs and addiction.i will continue to share this information when i read uninformed post on the issue.
For political and business reasons the government has lagged behind in labeling alcohol as a drug but the alcohol rehab community certainly see it as a drug as does most health care delivery professionals. but i can understand how a few or one could remain uninformed on this issue. imo

[GreenIce]

The issue with the drugs comes in because Nicole is always accused of being a heavy drug user by the NGs. There is no proof that she was involved with anything more than occasional recreational drug use while there is a great deal that indicates OJS was more than a casual user. I don't recall any of her friends saying that she was having behavorial changes due to drug use or even that they speculated that was a problem with her.

Simpson has trashed Nicole from the day after the murders and is still trashing her. He trashed her during the civil trial, in interviews and in his 'If I Did It' book. Have you read his deposition and testimony in the civil trial?

TV Dinner,

From the posts that I have read, I believe most NG's lean toward the "guilt by association" then her actual drug use. In American Tragedy, in one of the prelim exams by Dr. Baden, it was suspected that Nicole did use enough cocaine to cause damage to her nasal canal. However, I think later it was decided that was not the case. I don't remember it exactly but there was something in there about it.

An alleged drug dealer took a lie detector test and passed by saying that Simpson and Kato bought drugs from him that night--that did not happen. If the DA's had the evidence of Simpson's abuse of drugs they would have used it and that would have helped explain their theory that he was the sole killer.


You need to read "Raging Heart" by Sheila Weller. This book was written with the permission of the Browns and several of Nicole's friends do make comments about how much she changed. They were worried about her.

IMO, in that book, it seems Nicole led a very typical life of their set, however, after she met Faye Resnick, she started going down a path that concerned her friends.

Again, I asked for examples on how Simpson trashed her. Lets be honest, each and everyone can be 'trashed' by the truth of our actions. Does this mean our family and friends are overjoyed with having to tell the truth or they do so just to make sure they get in on the action, no. The truth is not always kind.

In reading some of Petrocelli's questions on direct, he appeared to have no qualms about presenting Nicole in a negative light. He needed to have Nicole trashed so his client's son would get "top billing" in the civil trial. I can't think of a better way to say it. He was there for Fred Goldman and he was there to have Nicole's life go under a microscope and by doing so, he avoid having Ron Goldman go under the same microscope.

While we all want to think that our criminal and civil deal are based on justice, it appears to me that our legal system is a business. Petrocelli made goo business decsions for his client Fred Goldman. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I never said I proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock didn’t come from her reference sample; I said Dr. Cotton’s degradation test results proved that.

Bottom line there is no evidence Vannatter tampered with or lied about handling the reference samples. He was part of the chain of custody.

Dr. Cotton presented documented test results from the degradation testing she performed that clearly showed how degraded Nicole’s reference sample was compared to Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Vanatter did lie about the reference samples of Ron and Nicole's, read Gary Siglar's deposition on this issue. Then read his book on it, the stories aren't even close other then they forced him to sign out Ron and Nicole's reference samples.

He made sure he was a part of the chain of custody regarding all three reference samples. His actions alone of bringing Simpson's reference sample to Rockingham still can't be explained, however, I think the media's favorite is that he was just "lazy". Which, IMO, makes no sense.

Vanatter on the chain of custody is just like MF making sure he was going to be a key witness in the trial. They wanted the fame and they both went down in flames, IMO.

Dr. Cotton didn't prove anything. She can't prove how and when the blood got on the socks. She can't explain why 4 or 5 state experts did not see blood on the socks. She can give her opinon but she can't prove anything.

Bascially, what you are saying is that there is no other way the blood could have gotten on the socks accept being pressed into the sock at the crime scene. Dr. Cotton's opinon is iron clad and not open to debate? That everybody in the free world agrees with her conclusions? I don't think so. She gave an opinon, nothing else.

[martin II]

fgump2,

What would be interesting is see photos of all the commentators were wearing gloves while working for NBC. Did they all wear the same make of glove? Were the commentators provided gloves by the network?

Also, I wonder if the police ever got a search warrant for Simpson's apartment in New York. He lived in NY a good part of year. IMO, had they found the same make and model of gloves in his NY apartment, that would have been compelling evidence, IMO.

It would have been interesting to see any testimony regarding people wearing a heating device that was placed on the inside of the glove.

i don't understand why tom mccollum was not a witness on the gloves.

The gs believe much of fays testimony up until she says nicole was freebasing with her,and had some kind of sexual relationship with her.

i have never fully understood the report that faye asked nicole to leave her children and flee to some carribean island to live with her. i would like to know if this is true or not.

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

From the posts that I have read, I believe most NG's lean toward the "guilt by association" then her actual drug use. In American Tragedy, in one of the prelim exams by Dr. Baden, it was suspected that Nicole did use enough cocaine to cause damage to her nasal canal. However, I think later it was decided that was not the case. I don't remember it exactly but there was something in there about it.

An alleged drug dealer took a lie detector test and passed by saying that Simpson and Kato bought drugs from him that night--that did not happen. If the DA's had the evidence of Simpson's abuse of drugs they would have used it and that would have helped explain their theory that he was the sole killer.


You need to read "Raging Heart" by Sheila Weller. This book was written with the permission of the Browns and several of Nicole's friends do make comments about how much she changed. They were worried about her.

IMO, in that book, it seems Nicole led a very typical life of their set, however, after she met Faye Resnick, she started going down a path that concerned her friends.

Again, I asked for examples on how Simpson trashed her. Lets be honest, each and everyone can be 'trashed' by the truth of our actions. Does this mean our family and friends are overjoyed with having to tell the truth or they do so just to make sure they get in on the action, no. The truth is not always kind.

In reading some of Petrocelli's questions on direct, he appeared to have no qualms about presenting Nicole in a negative light. He needed to have Nicole trashed so his client's son would get "top billing" in the civil trial. I can't think of a better way to say it. He was there for Fred Goldman and he was there to have Nicole's life go under a microscope and by doing so, he avoid having Ron Goldman go under the same microscope.

While we all want to think that our criminal and civil deal are based on justice, it appears to me that our legal system is a business. Petrocelli made goo business decsions for his client Fred Goldman. IMO.

CF was very concerned about nicole when faye came into her life and constantly told her so. The nightly club hopping.picking up strangers,cocain use all the different men. This had not been the nicole she and others knew prior to fays arrival. So it was not just oj that thought she had changed.

[Kate Sachel]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/333/7562/275

William,

All that the article in this link tells me is that alcohol "should" be classified as a drug, not that it is.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think everyone knows that alcohol is a drug, except maybe those that abuse it, and they may realize it when the obtain sobriety. I think that to fail to recognize it as a drug and a disease does a disrespect to those that have been addicted to it and shows a rather callous attitude, IMHO.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_alcoholism_a_disease_or_a_learned_behavior

I recognize alcoholism as a disease, but I do not recognize alcohol as a drug. I also think that to state that anyone who fails to recognize such shows a callous attitude is wholly inaccurate. I know all about alcoholism, my mother was both an alcoholic and a drug addict.

In what were called "marathon sessions" in the family therapy that we attended while my mother was in the rehabilitation center we discussed the differences in being an alcoholic and an addict. We attended classes. There are classified differences.

So forgive me if I take offense to that statement.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that had been legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?

This is an incorrect statement.

It wasn't until 1996 when California passed Prop 215, which is what legalized marijuana for medical use in that state.

Kate

[martin II]

I am sure that NA would dissagree with any one that thinks alcohol is not a drug or that there is basically any differance betweem a alcoholic and a addict. Many alcholics like to say it is not a drug because it is legal and that their addiction is not as serious as a common regular heron or cocain user.That is denial. the alcoholic wakes up with a physical and mental requirement for alcohol the drug addict wakes up with the same two requiremts but for say coke a different mind altering substance. both are addicts.
Any mind altering substance is a drug.NA

ps

alcohol addiction and coke addition are both diseases.

[Kate Sachel]

I am sure that NA would dissagree with any one that thinks alcohol is not a drug or that there is basically any differance betweem a alcoholic and a addict. Many alcholics like to say it is not a drug because it is legal and that their addiction is not as serious as a common regular heron or cocain user.That is denial. the alcoholic wakes up with a physical and mental requirement for alcohol the drug addict wakes up with the same two requiremts but for say coke a different mind altering substance. both are addicts.
Any mind altering substance is a drug.NA

We're not talking about what an alcoholic or drug addict thinks, we are talking about legal classifications.

Kate

[weezer]

The inference is, through all the testimony/evidence, the socks were not in the bedroom when they should have been, the amount of EDTA is more than what is found in unpreserved human blood and the blood was not seen on the socks until three weeks after they were collected, that the blood was planted, which is the inference I drew.

william, the testimony/evidence is that the room was not video taped until AFTER the socks were collected.

the amount of EDTA is less than found in preserved human blood.

the fact that LE continued to test collected evidence would seem odd only to the someone looking to confirm anunconfirmable conspiracy theory. imo

[weezer]

This is an incorrect statement.

It wasn't until 1996 when California passed Prop 215, which is what legalized marijuana for medical use in that state.

Kate

I didn't understand the comparison -- how does seeing mom with a glass of wine or dad with a marijuana cig relate? and why would someone want to insinuate that orenthal was on pot for medical purposes?

[martin II]

Regardless of the state classification Alcohol is a drug. To say it is not is incorrect.


by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Beverage alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a drug. But exactly what is a drug?

A drug is simply “Any substance which when absorbed into a living organism may modify one or more of its functions.” 1

In reality, "any substance that by its chemical nature alters structure or function in the living organism is a drug. . . .

[weezer]

Regardless of the state classification Alcohol is a drug. To say it is not is incorrect.


by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Beverage alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a drug. But exactly what is a drug?

A drug is simply “Any substance which when absorbed into a living organism may modify one or more of its functions.” 1

In reality, "any substance that by its chemical nature alters structure or function in the living organism is a drug. . . .

using either of these definitions would encompass food, air, etc. no one is saying alcoholism isn't a bad thing, just simply saying that it is not recognized as a drug. :shrug:

[tv]

I have not seen anyone insult you, be nasty to you or bully you but I am aware that you make those claims. Perhaps, you should place us ignore, as the moderator suggested, if that is how you feel.

I am considering it; however, it hasn't worked for me in the past. Perhaps you should place me on ignore as the moderator suggested to you.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

From the posts that I have read, I believe most NG's lean toward the "guilt by association" then her actual drug use. In American Tragedy, in one of the prelim exams by Dr. Baden, it was suspected that Nicole did use enough cocaine to cause damage to her nasal canal. However, I think later it was decided that was not the case. I don't remember it exactly but there was something in there about it. If that was not the case why are you posting it?

An alleged drug dealer took a lie detector test and passed by saying that Simpson and Kato bought drugs from him that night--that did not happen. If the DA's had the evidence of Simpson's abuse of drugs they would have used it and that would have helped explain their theory that he was the sole killer. OJS has marijuana in his system that night. No secret.

You need to read "Raging Heart" by Sheila Weller. This book was written with the permission of the Browns and several of Nicole's friends do make comments about how much she changed. They were worried about her. Did they attribute the changes to drugs or did they attribute it being a result of the abuse and treatment she received in her marriage?

IMO, in that book, it seems Nicole led a very typical life of their set, however, after she met Faye Resnick, she started going down a path that concerned her friends.

Again, I asked for examples on how Simpson trashed her. Lets be honest, each and everyone can be 'trashed' by the truth of our actions. Does this mean our family and friends are overjoyed with having to tell the truth or they do so just to make sure they get in on the action, no. The truth is not always kind. I could enumerate many incidences of him trashing her if I had the time to research them and list them. The truth isn't always kind but his trashing of her was neither always truthful nor was it necessary.

In reading some of Petrocelli's questions on direct, he appeared to have no qualms about presenting Nicole in a negative light. He needed to have Nicole trashed so his client's son would get "top billing" in the civil trial. I can't think of a better way to say it. He was there for Fred Goldman and he was there to have Nicole's life go under a microscope and by doing so, he avoid having Ron Goldman go under the same microscope. The problem isn't Petrocelli's questions -- Simpson's answers are what is disgusting. Petrocelli didn't have to put Ron under microscope because Bob Baker covered that -- in fact, the defense mocked and ridiculed Ron in the courtroom in full view and hearing of his family.

While we all want to think that our criminal and civil deal are based on justice, it appears to me that our legal system is a business. Petrocelli made goo business decsions for his client Fred Goldman. IMO. Why do you take issue with Petrocelli being an aggressive and honest advocate for Fred Goldman but give Cochran and company a pass for the shameful antics they pulled in the criminal trial? It was certainly a business to them including them hauling things out of Simpson's house for compensation.

I've said that Nicole was a casual drug user. I disagree that she was a regular, heavy drug user. The only person I've seen say that is OJS and we all know he had a vested interest in making her look bad.

[William Anthony]

William,

All that the article in this link tells me is that alcohol "should" be classified as a drug, not that it is.

Kate

http://www.answers.com/topic/alcohol-use-and-abuse

"Alcohol is also the drug most frequently used by children and adolescents."

[William Anthony]

I recognize alcoholism as a disease, but I do not recognize alcohol as a drug. I also think that to state that anyone who fails to recognize such shows a callous attitude is wholly inaccurate. I know all about alcoholism, my mother was both an alcoholic and a drug addict.

In what were called "marathon sessions" in the family therapy that we attended while my mother was in the rehabilitation center we discussed the differences in being an alcoholic and an addict. We attended classes. There are classified differences.

So forgive me if I take offense to that statement.

Kate

Well now, I will share with you what I know having been dually addicted. There is no difference in a person that is addicted to anything or substance and the damage comes in when that person cannot control his addiction. I am a recovering drug addict and, although they call it alcoholic, they are both diseases. I was in the rehab when President Reagan classified alcoholism/drug addiction as a disease but refused to pay for it. If you mean that someone is addicted to alcohol to mean alcoholism, then there is no difference between being addicted to alcohol or any other drug. It is the addiction to the drug that wreaks havoc and damage to the person and to the person's loved ones and to deny that fact that the person, who is addicted, has no control over the substance and very little control over what they will do to acquire the substance minimizes what the addict is going through and shows a callousness due to a lack of understanding. I for one hate the word junkie, because junk can mean abusing anything, such as food. I lived to be high and alcohol and heroin both had their effects upon my body with withdrawal symptoms and probably long term health effects. Not all those who use drugs can't control them, which is why there have been functioning drug addicts. I am speaking of those, who like myself, were unable to control their addictions. I take offense at anyone who does not acknowledge what drug addicts, including alcoholics, go through while in their addiction and do not realize that the first step to recovery is to admit that someone is powerless over the substance.

[William Anthony]

This is an incorrect statement.

It wasn't until 1996 when California passed Prop 215, which is what legalized marijuana for medical use in that state.

Kate

Allow me to correct the statement, Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that soon would be legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?

[William Anthony]

We're not talking about what an alcoholic or drug addict thinks, we are talking about legal classifications.

Kate

Alcohol is a drug.

[William Anthony]

I have posted the testimony, regarding the magical socks and the amount of EDTA found on them. When there are two reasonable inferences to be drawn, one for guilt and one for innocence, the jury was required by the instruction on reasonable doubt to accept the one that pointed to innocence.

[William Anthony]

How does one say that alcohol is not a drug and claim that Simpson was the only one with drugs in his system?

[William Anthony]

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

"Beverage alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a drug."

A drug that is often abused-a Williamism.:)

[William Anthony]

I am considering it; however, it hasn't worked for me in the past. Perhaps you should place me on ignore as the moderator suggested to you.

I do not have to place you on ignore to ignore those posts of yours I choose to ignore but thanks for the suggestion.

[Kate Sachel]

Allow me to correct the statement, Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that soon would be legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?

Except for the fact that it was not legal at that time, and so we do know that it was not prescribed for medical purposes.

Alcohol is also touted as being very good for your heart by the way of one or two glasses of wine per day.

In conclusion I can firmly say that it sounds far worse that OJ Simpson had an illegal drug in his system at that time.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Except for the fact that it was not legal at that time, and so we do know that it was not prescribed for medical purposes.

Alcohol is also touted as being very good for your heart by the way of one or two glasses of wine per day.

In conclusion I can firmly say that it sounds far worse that OJ Simpson had an illegal drug in his system at that time.

Kate

I don't think that the benefits of two glasses of wine had been recognized in 1996? I think it sounds equally as good or bad to say that someone had trace amounts of drugs in their system and it is not correct to say that Simpson was the only one with drugs in his system.

[William Anthony]

http://www.unr.edu/educ/tips/module2/sympt2-a.htm

http://hubpages.com/hub/Marijuana-withdrawal-symptoms-Insomnia--anxiety--iritability--headache

[tv]

Since 1991 there have been hundreds of reports providing strong evidence proving the health benefits of drinking red wine. Most studies suggest two 4-ounce glasses per day is enough to lower the risk of heart attack, lower the amount of cholesterol in the blood, decrease the risk of heart disease and even decrease the risk of some forms of cancer.

http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/health-benefits-of-drinking-wine.html

[weezer]

Since 1991 there have been hundreds of reports providing strong evidence proving the health benefits of drinking red wine. Most studies suggest two 4-ounce glasses per day is enough to lower the risk of heart attack, lower the amount of cholesterol in the blood, decrease the risk of heart disease and even decrease the risk of some forms of cancer.

http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/health-benefits-of-drinking-wine.html

this argument reminds me of orenthal saying he never hit Nicole -- while the pictures of her bruised and battered face and body were being shown. :shrug:

I'm looking for the link to Reagan classifying alcohol as a drug -- anyone?

[martin II]

Alcohol is a drug.

The governments refusal for political and business reason to classify alcohol as a drug has nothing to do with the fact that it is. Those that hide behind the governments lack of action are missing the boat on the issue as any substance that alters ones mental or physical state is a drug.imo

[tv]

this argument reminds me of orenthal saying he never hit Nicole -- while the pictures of her bruised and battered face and body were being shown. :shrug:

I'm looking for the link to Reagan classifying alcohol as a drug -- anyone?

I haven't been able to find it. :shrug:

Just like he never had those 'ugly-ass shoes' in his possession. Who are you going to believe -- OJS or your lying eyes?

[weezer]

good article on "Drinks, Drugs and Diability: An Introduction to the Controversy"

http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/GSSW/schram/hunt.pdf

[martin II]

Since 1991 there have been hundreds of reports providing strong evidence proving the health benefits of drinking red wine. Most studies suggest two 4-ounce glasses per day is enough to lower the risk of heart attack, lower the amount of cholesterol in the blood, decrease the risk of heart disease and even decrease the risk of some forms of cancer.

http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/health-benefits-of-drinking-wine.html

The suggested benefits of red wine. coffee and other substances may or may not be true,but that does not change the fact that they are both drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not.
The other issue is one can abuse a substance without being addictive.Addiction comes into play when ones mental or physical state requires the substance.

[tv]

The suggested benefits of red wine. coffee and other substances may or may not be true,but that does not change the fact that they are both drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not.
The other issue is one can abuse a substance without being addictive.Addiction comes into play when ones mental or physical state requires the substance.

The bottom line is that the difference between OJS using marijuana and Nicole drinking wine is that he was breaking the law and she wasn't. I supplied the link because one poster opined that the benefits of red wine weren't known in 1994. It doesn't really matter to the discussion.

[tv]

good article on "Drinks, Drugs and Diability: An Introduction to the Controversy"

http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/GSSW/schram/hunt.pdf

Very interesting article. :)

[martin II]

The authority of what is a drug and what is not rest in the hands of the drug rehab community not the govenment.The people that deal with this problem daily and have the knowledge and reserarch to understand.The government is just a legal body that operates frp political reasons. At one time cocain was sanctioned by the government as legal.

The wine indystry finances various studies to support the use of their product.Some people can drink 2 glasses a day with no problems others based on the make up of drug receptors in the brain cannot stop at 2.

[William Anthony]

The governments refusal for political and business reason to classify alcohol as a drug has nothing to do with the fact that it is. Those that hide behind the governments lack of action are missing the boat on the issue as any substance that alters ones mental or physical state is a drug.imo

They did classify it as a drug and alcoholism as a disease. They just refused to allow disability for it. :)

[martin II]

The bottom line is that the difference between OJS using marijuana and Nicole drinking wine is that he was breaking the law and she wasn't. I supplied the link because one poster opined that the benefits of red wine weren't known in 1994. It doesn't really matter to the discussion.

From a legal point of view you are correct.factally both had drugs in them.

[weezer]

From a legal point of view you are correct.factally both had drugs in them.

factually, only orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system at the time he was arrested for butchering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

we can end this debate by a simple post stating alcohol is a listed as a drug. :shrug:

[weezer]

They did classify it as a drug and alcoholism as a disease. They just refused to allow disability for it. :)

william, I've looked high and low for anything on this. do you have a link to something other than a Ph.D's opinion?

[tv]

From a legal point of view you are correct.factally both had drugs in them.

Factually and legally, OJS had the illegal drug marijuana in his system which had to have been obtained by illegal means. Nicole had alcohol in her system which was purchased and consumed within the confines of the law.

[William Anthony]

Since 1991 there have been hundreds of reports providing strong evidence proving the health benefits of drinking red wine. Most studies suggest two 4-ounce glasses per day is enough to lower the risk of heart attack, lower the amount of cholesterol in the blood, decrease the risk of heart disease and even decrease the risk of some forms of cancer.

http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/health-benefits-of-drinking-wine.html


I don't think that the benefits of two glasses of wine had been recognized in 1996? Not suggested.

[martin II]

Very interesting article. :)

i doubt that any person addicted to alcohol or any other drug volunteers to be in that position.Some of us have more coping skills than others.

[tv]

I don't think that the benefits of two glasses of wine had been recognized in 1996? Not suggested.

The amount required is 'suggested'. The pertinent text is 'hundreds of reports providing strong evidence...' Why are we talking about 1996?

[martin II]

Factually and legally, OJS had the illegal drug marijuana in his system which had to have been obtained by illegal means. Nicole had alcohol in her system which was purchased and consumed within the confines of the law.

I agree but my point is that both had drugs in their systems.To say nicole didn't have drugs in her system is just not accurate and this false claim has been made by a poster over and over here .oj broke the law by using a illegal drug if it was not prescribed for him.
ps before the california law doctors were prescribing marijuana for certain patients for specific health reasons leagally. The CA law was just a effort to extend or expand this practice.imo

[William Anthony]

The amount required is 'suggested'. The pertinent text is 'hundreds of reports providing strong evidence...' Why are we talking about 1996?

Because I said that in 1996 I did not think the benefits of alcohol had been recognized, as in accepted by the medical community, and maybe I should have said 1994 but I was discussing marijuana and alcohol, two drugs.

[weezer]

I agree but my point is that both had drugs in their systems.To say nicole didn't have drugs in her system is just not accurate and this false claim has been made by a poster over and over here .oj broke the law by using a illegal drug if it was not prescribed for him.
ps before the california law doctors were prescribing marijuana for certain patients for specific health reasons leagally. The CA law was just a effort to extend or expand this practice.imo

no -- you are incorrect -- Nicole did not have a recognized drug in her system -- she had a small amount of alcohol which was contributed to the two glasses of wine she had with her dinner. orenthal had an illegal drug in his system which (I'm being kind here) could be contributed to his needing something to mellow him out after he butchered two human beings.

looks to me like two things need to happen in order for this debate to end:

1. any link where alcohol is listed as a drug
2. any link to orenthal having a prescription for his illegal marijuan.

[tv]

I agree but my point is that both had drugs in their systems.To say nicole didn't have drugs in her system is just not accurate and this false claim has been made by a poster over and over here .oj broke the law by using a illegal drug if it was not prescribed for him.
ps before the california law doctors were prescribing marijuana for certain patients for specific health reasons leagally. The CA law was just a effort to extend or expand this practice.imo

Once again, the bottom line is that on the night of June 12, 1994 OJS had illegal drugs in his system and Nicole did not. She spent a nice evening at the recital and had dinner with her parents and children and then went home with her children. The only wrong move she made that night was walking out her front door which caused her life to be taken by a brutal murderer -- the father of her children who had illegal drugs in his system.

[William Anthony]

While I have not been able to find a link to Regan's announcement in 1989, I was in the Veteran Administration rehab and I and others were awaiting the decision and the checks, only to be disappointed but I remember this. :)

Here are some links that may be of assistance to all realizing that alcohol is a drug, smile.

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/PublicHealth/WPDT-MisappTech.htm

http://www.ncadd.org/history/events.html

It is only fitting that alcohol is recognized as a drug, since the federal government regulates its importation, distribution and sale.

[tv]

Because I said that in 1996 I did not think the benefits of alcohol had been recognized, as in accepted by the medical community, and maybe I should have said 1994 but I was discussing marijuana and alcohol, two drugs.

The important year is 1994. By 1996, Nicole had been dead for two years.

[martin II]

The amount required is 'suggested'. The pertinent text is 'hundreds of reports providing strong evidence...' Why are we talking about 1996?

Several years ago there were reports that coffee was bad for ones health and many stopped drinking coffee includimg me. Now there are new studies out touting benefits of coffee for health reasons. So much for studies.

[William Anthony]

Once again, the bottom line is that on the night of June 12, 1994 OJS had illegal drugs in his system and Nicole did not. She spent a nice evening at the recital and had dinner with her parents and children and then went home with her children. The only wrong move she made that night was walking out her front door which caused her life to be taken by a brutal murderer -- the father of her children who had illegal drugs in his system.

I was not saying that Ms. NBS did anything wrong, only that it is wrong to say that Simpson was the only one found to have drugs in his system.

[weezer]

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap6.html

From: Engs, Ruth C. [Ed.], Controversies in the Addiction's Field . CHAPTER 6: Herbert Fingarette. "Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism"

CHAPTER 6
Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism*
Herbert Fingarette, Ph. D.

[tv]

Several years ago there were reports that coffee was bad for ones health and many stopped drinking coffee includimg me. Now there are new studies out touting benefits of coffee for health reasons. So much for studies.

The question was whether or not it the health benefits of drinking wine was known in 1994.

[weezer]

I was not saying that Ms. NBS did anything wrong, only that it is wrong to say that Simpson was the only one found to have drugs in his system.

but that is the point william -- Nicole did NOT have drugs in her system on the night orenthal james simpson murdered her. however, on the night orenthal james simpson butchered two people, he DID have illegal drugs in his system.

[tv]

While I have not been able to find a link to Regan's announcement in 1989, I was in the Veteran Administration rehab and I and others were awaiting the decision and the checks, only to be disappointed but I remember this. :)

Here are some links that may be of assistance to all realizing that alcohol is a drug, smile.

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/PublicHealth/WPDT-MisappTech.htm

http://www.ncadd.org/history/events.html

It is only fitting that alcohol is recognized as a drug, since the federal government regulates its importation, distribution and sale.

They also regulate the importation, distribution and sale of food but don't classify groceries as a drug.

[martin II]

Once again, the bottom line is that on the night of June 12, 1994 OJS had illegal drugs in his system and Nicole did not. She spent a nice evening at the recital and had dinner with her parents and children and then went home with her children. The only wrong move she made that night was walking out her front door which caused her life to be taken by a brutal murderer -- the father of her children who had illegal drugs in his system.

i guess we are in agreement on the following.
Based on a drug screen on 6/13 oj had traces of a illegal drug in his system.
Based on Nicole drinking alcohol at the resturant on 6/12 she had a legal drug in her system.

Therefore both had drugs in their systems on those dates and to say Nicole did not have drugs in her system on 6/12 is not correct.
IMO

ps we don't know what oj had in his system on 6/12 because the blood test was not done until 6/13
Martin.

[weezer]

i guess we are in agreement on the following.
Based on a drug screen on 6/13 oj had traces of a illegal drug in his system.
Based on Nicole drinking alcohol at the resturant on 6/12 she had a legal drug in her system.

Therefore both had drugs in their systems on those dates and to say Nicole did not have drugs in her system on 6/12 is not correct.
IMO
Martin.

I think the only person that's going to be in agreement with you will be william since you both have the mistaken idea that alcohol is listed/considered a drug -- much less an illegal drug like orenthal's marijuana. to say that Nicole had drugs in her system on the night she was butchered by orenthal james simpson is not correct. to say that orenthal james simpson had illegal drugs in his system on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown is correct.

[tv]

i guess we are in agreement on the following.
Based on a drug screen on 6/13 oj had traces of a illegal drug in his system.
Based on Nicole drinking alcohol at the resturant on 6/12 she had a legal drug in her system.

Therefore both had drugs in their systems on those dates and to say Nicole did not have drugs in her system on 6/12 is not correct.
IMO

ps we don't know what oj had in his system on 6/12 because the blood test was not done until 6/13
Martin.

Nicole did not have drugs in her system on June 12. I'll agree that OJS had illegal drugs in his system on June 13 and IMO it's highly likely that it was there on June 12.

[martin II]

They also regulate the importation, distribution and sale of food but don't classify groceries as a drug.

The government regulates alcohol as if it were a drug for tax income purposes
but for political reasons they have not put it on illegal list.Yet.

[martin II]

Nicole did not have drugs in her system on June 12. I'll agree that OJS had illegal drugs in his system on June 13 and IMO it's highly likely that it was there on June 12.

By your post i guess you are saying that alcohol is not a drug in reality.

[weezer]

The government regulates alcohol as if it were a drug for tax income purposes
but for political reasons they have not put it on illegal list.Yet.

so we all are now in agreement that alcohol is not listed as a drug.

whew! glad that's over!

[tv]

The government regulates alcohol as if it were a drug for tax income purposes
but for political reasons they have not put it on illegal list.Yet.

They regulate it for tax revenue but that doesn't mean they classify it as drug. They also regulate firearms but they aren't drugs either.

[tv]

so we all are now in agreement that alcohol is not listed as a drug.

whew! glad that's over!

Me too!

[fgump2]

Mr. August,

No you have not conclusively proved that Nicole's blood on the sock could not have have come from her reference sample. Gary Sims, an expert in this field testified that he could not testify to how and when the blood got on the sock.

Marcia Clark wrote in her book that Dr. Baden could not be sure if there was blood on the sock because he was not allowed to use the high intensity lighting she said was needed.

Bottom line, VA had, at one time or another, had all three reference samples. VA has been caught and exposed as a liar on several key issues, to include his lie about how and who he got Ron and Nicole's reference sample done. VA has training in blood collecting evidence, had access to the lab.

Dr. Cotton's testimony in the civil trial means nothing---it was the criminal trial that matter and he job was to determine who's DNA it was, not where it came from, as from a reference sample or from another "jar" of blood that VA and Lange helped Dr. Golden collect.
Could you explain why Dr. Cotton's testimony on the sock blood not coming from the reference tube doesn't mean anything? Was she incompetent? Was she dishonest? I don't know why she didn't testify to this in the criminal trial, and I don't think you do either, so that point doesn't mean anything, except that the criminal jury didn't hear that testimonyYou have been asked for the degree of medical certainity on this issue, you have provided none. You have been asked regarding other experts, would they, who also worked on this case would concur with Dr. Cotton's opininon.

Dr. Cotton never testified how and when the blood got on the sock, it was her opinon that it did not come from the reference sample, but again, if this was the case, where was she during the criminal trial?

The DA's spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on the criminal trial, they could not prove how and when the blood got on the socks.

Petrocelli asking Dr. Cotton to make a finding on this issue speaks volumes, he should have picked an actual expert, not a left over witness who was clearly in the DA's camp who was embarrased by her own testimony when it came to her company. She had axe to grind. IMO.

Why Doesn't Dr. Cotton count as an expert? She had a PHD in biochemistry, and hes worked in a well reguarded lab for years. If she wasn't an expert then who is? I think you ignore experts for reasons that are trivial.
I think you wanted to ignore Spitz's testimony in the civil trial because he refrused to testify in the criminal trial. I don't buy that.

Do you think Dr. COtton slanted her testimony as much as Baden or Heny Lee? Not even close. I saw no evidence that Dr. Cotton slanted her testimony.
Do you disreguard the testimony of Baden or Henry Lee as being slanted? I think you are cherry picking testimony according to how it fits with making Simpson innocent.


Also as for Orenthal trashing Nicole, I am pretty sure he repeatidly said she associated with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes). Considering Orenthals promiscuous affairs that is a strange He also made remarks about her using drugs too much but couldn't back it up with very many specifics. I don't have links to the Heidi Fleiss remarks, but could probably find them.

[martin II]

They regulate it for tax revenue but that doesn't mean they classify it as drug. They also regulate firearms but they aren't drugs either.

the gov has not put alcohol on the illegal drug list.We know that.
my question is do you believe that alcohol is a drug?

[tv]

the gov has not put alcohol on the illegal drug list.We know that.
my question is do you believe that alcohol is a drug?

Why does that matter?

[martin II]

Why does that matter?

since we are discussing this issue i am interested in knowing what your position is. is alcohol a drug?

[tv]

since we are discussing this issue i am interested in knowing what your position is. is alcohol a drug?

My opinion is if alcohol were a drug the government would classify it as such. If you'll notice the phrase is 'drug and alcohol rehab' not 'drug and drug' rehab or 'so and so has an alcohol problem' not 'so and so has a liquid drug problem'.

[weezer]

the gov has not put alcohol on the illegal drug list.We know that.
my question is do you believe that alcohol is a drug?

this one is easy -- NO

[William Anthony]

I think Martin may well be the wisest person on the board and, if William tells you a duck is going to pull a plow, don't ask him how, just hitch him up.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1046287266.html

"What few people probably know is that the government officially classifies alcohol as a "drug" - along with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Critics have since pointed out that trivializing drug use by labeling alcohol as a drug may very well lead to increased casual use of actual drugs."

It took some doing but I knew I was right and that Martin was extremely astute.

[William Anthony]

Nicole did not have drugs in her system on June 12. I'll agree that OJS had illegal drugs in his system on June 13 and IMO it's highly likely that it was there on June 12.

Ms. NBS had a drug, alcohol, in her system.

[tv]

I think Martin may well be the wisest person on the board and, if William tells you a duck is going to pull a plow, don't ask him how, just hitch him up.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1046287266.html

"What few people probably know is that the government officially classifies alcohol as a "drug" - along with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Critics have since pointed out that trivializing drug use by labeling alcohol as a drug may very well lead to increased casual use of actual drugs."

It took some doing but I knew I was right and that Martin was extremely astute.

So, it's not an 'actual' drug? I'd like to see this classification from an official government source.

[martin II]

My opinion is if alcohol were a drug the government would classify it as such. If you'll notice the phrase is 'drug and alcohol rehab' not 'drug and drug' rehab or 'so and so has an alcohol problem' not 'so and so has a liquid drug problem'.

Thanks
We dissagree.
i agree with national drug rehab professionals and research that alcohol is a drug. i am not interested in what the gov has not done as i believe that politicians have other interst on this issue.i think that most informed health care professionals/providers agree with drug rehab professionals that alcohol is a drug and that the statement that nicole did not have drugs in her system on 6.12 is not accurate and correct.imo

[tv]

Thanks
We dissagree.
i agree with national drug rehab professionals and research that alcohol is a drug. i am not interested in what the gov has not done as i believe that politicians have other interst on this issue.i think that most informed health care professionals/providers agree with drug rehab professionals that alcohol is a drug and that the statement that nicole did not have drugs in her system on 6.12 is not accurate and correct.imo

I do not agree that Nicole had drugs in her system the night of June 12. Even if she did why does it matter? She didn't deserve to be murdered even if she'd been lying in the gutter with a bottle in a brown bag.

[weezer]

I think Martin may well be the wisest person on the board and, if William tells you a duck is going to pull a plow, don't ask him how, just hitch him up.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1046287266.html

"What few people probably know is that the government officially classifies alcohol as a "drug" - along with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Critics have since pointed out that trivializing drug use by labeling alcohol as a drug may very well lead to increased casual use of actual drugs."

It took some doing but I knew I was right and that Martin was extremely astute.

this is who you quoted? LOL

Justin Leto (senior-computer engineering) and Bob Hyeneman (junior-journalism) burn a Penn State flag in front of Boucke Building yesterday.

[tv]

this is who you quoted? LOL

Justin Leto (senior-computer engineering) and Bob Hyeneman (junior-journalism) burn a Penn State flag in front of Boucke Building yesterday.

Why did they do that?

[martin II]

So, it's not an 'actual' drug? I'd like to see this classification from an official government source.


TV
Don't worry its ok to be wrong especially when one is misinformed.i understand your position.

[William Anthony]

So, it's not an 'actual' drug? I'd like to see this classification from an official government source.

First, you or maybe another poster, I can't remember which, made the statement that the government did not classify alcohol as a drug. I provided a link that, IIRC, is affiliated with the federal government. However, if not, you then say that it is not an actual drug. Of course, it is and Martin provided the definition of a drug. The fact that it is included in with the narcotics is what seems to be disturbing you but, speaking from personal experience, it has the same addictive properties as those narcotics listed in that it can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.

[tv]

First, you or maybe another poster, I can't remember which, made the statement that the government did not classify alcohol as a drug. I provided a link that, IIRC, is affiliated with the federal government. However, if not, you then say that it is not an actual drug. Of course, it is and Martin provided the definition of a drug. The fact that it is included in with the narcotics is what seems to be disturbing you but, speaking from personal experience, it has the same addictive properties as those narcotics listed in that it can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.

I didn't say it wasn't an actual drug. That's what your link says.

[weezer]

Why did they do that?

it seems he is/was an 'activist' -- you know what that means right? dude was looking for a cause. . . .

it's been my experience that folks who 'can't' often look for a 'cause' -- :tongue:

[tv]

TV
Don't worry its ok to be wrong especially when one is misinformed.i understand your position.

This from someone that hitches ducks to plows? Or was that William?

[weezer]

First, you or maybe another poster, I can't remember which, made the statement that the government did not classify alcohol as a drug. I provided a link that, IIRC, is affiliated with the federal government. However, if not, you then say that it is not an actual drug. Of course, it is and Martin provided the definition of a drug. The fact that it is included in with the narcotics is what seems to be disturbing you but, speaking from personal experience, it has the same addictive properties as those narcotics listed in that it can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.

LOL -- you believe that because a student activist at a university wrote the statement you posted means that it is affiliated with the federal government? LOL

[William Anthony]

This is what I found on Justin Leto.

http://www.lawyers.com/Florida/Miami/Justin-C.-Leto-3017470-a.html

[William Anthony]

This from someone that hitches ducks to plows? Or was that William?

Break out your plow and I will supply the duck. :)

[weezer]

This from someone that hitches ducks to plows? Or was that William?

LOL -- that was one of william's little -- what does he call them? oh right -- williamisms. :D

[tv]

Break out your plow and I will supply the duck. :)

It may surprise you to know that I don't own a plow.

[tv]

LOL -- that was one of william's little -- what does he call them? oh right -- williamisms. :D

Oh, I see. I thought there might be a reason to call PETA. :D

[tv]

This is what I found on Justin Leto.

http://www.lawyers.com/Florida/Miami/Justin-C.-Leto-3017470-a.html

Are you sure it's the same guy? It doesn't list any of his schools as Penn State.

[weezer]

This is what I found on Justin Leto.

http://www.lawyers.com/Florida/Miami/Justin-C.-Leto-3017470-a.html

hmmm - obviously not the same Justin Leto that wrote the article you supplied. ;)

[William Anthony]

It may surprise you to know that I don't own a plow.

Call me when you get one.:)

[tv]

Call me when you get one.:)

I'm more likely to get a duck than a plow and I don't expect to ever have either one.

[William Anthony]

Are you sure it's the same guy? It doesn't list any of his schools as Penn State.

What in the article led you to believe that Justin Leto attended Penn State? He was writing about an article from Harvard , or that he was a student. I could see a lawyer appealing to students, a class of citizens notorious for drinking, to let them know he was on their side. I did not read the bottom and Mr. Leto is a student at Penn State and active in community affairs.

[William Anthony]

I'm more likely to get a duck than a plow and I don't expect to ever have either one.

Then don't call. :)

[William Anthony]

I didn't say it wasn't an actual drug. That's what your link says.

Yes, Mr. Leto seems to be of the opinion that alcohol should not be classified as a drug, which, IMHO, lends more credibility to his statement that few people know the federal government classifies it as a drug. That is about the only statement in his article I agree with. I have seen people and I have been one that become obnoxious and dangerous when they have had to much alcohol. The heroin addicts I have seen that have had too much, including myself, become quiet if they don't overdose and die. The one thing that they aren't doing is running around getting in the face of others and endangering others' lives.

[weezer]

What in the article led you to believe that Justin Leto attended Penn State? Justin Leto is a student leader at the Pennsylvania State University, where is active in both university and community affairs.

He was writing about an article from Harvard he was using data from Harvard researchers, or that he was a student.

I could see a lawyer appealing to students, a class of citizens notorious for drinking, to let them know he was on their side. I did not read the bottom and Mr. Leto is a student at Penn State and active in community affairs.

:shrug:

[weezer]

Yes, Mr. Leto seems to be of the opinion that alcohol should not be classified as a drug, which, IMHO, lends more credibility to his statement that few people know the federal government classifies it as a drug. That is about the only statement in his article I agree with. I have seen people and I have been one that become obnoxious and dangerous when they have had to much alcohol. The heroin addicts I have seen that have had too much, including myself, become quiet if they don't overdose and die. The one thing that they aren't doing is running around getting in the face of others and endangering others' lives.

okay -- so now we know that Leto was an activist at Penn State who didn't believe alcohol to be a drug. Now, maybe a link to a credible site that states alcohol is a listed drug?

[martin II]

I do not agree that Nicole had drugs in her system the night of June 12. Even if she did why does it matter? She didn't deserve to be murdered even if she'd been lying in the gutter with a bottle in a brown bag.

the fact that both had drugs in their system means nothing but they had drugs.
the discussion evolved because weezer has on so many ocassions said nicole did not have drugs in her system after screaming that oj had drugs,TRACES OF MARIJUANA .we now know nicole had drugs in her system also.

i believe some thought it was time to correct weezers false claims before someone believed her.imo:cool:

[martin II]

if the gov does not believe alcohol is a drug why does DOT require alcohol and regular drug test of employees.

[martin II]

two issues.
1. Does the gov list alcohol as a drug.

2. Does indivudal posters believe alcohol is a drug regardless of whether the gov list it or not.

[martin II]

Any g that believes the government does not classify alcohol as a drug can prove that claim by posting the government list.

[martin II]

Yes, Mr. Leto seems to be of the opinion that alcohol should not be classified as a drug, which, IMHO, lends more credibility to his statement that few people know the federal government classifies it as a drug. That is about the only statement in his article I agree with. I have seen people and I have been one that become obnoxious and dangerous when they have had to much alcohol. The heroin addicts I have seen that have had too much, including myself, become quiet if they don't overdose and die. The one thing that they aren't doing is running around getting in the face of others and endangering others' lives.

william
when they don't like the message they just pull out their knifes and cut the messengers neck. hahaha.

i bet the alcohol rehab community that deal with the teenage alcohol addiction problems in America know alcohol is a drug regardless of what the gov has not done.

[weezer]

Any g that believes the government does not classify alcohol as a drug can prove that claim by posting the government list.

that's not how it works martin and you know that. you and william claim that alcohol is a drug -- you have been asked to provide a link to substantiate your claims. You have not. As I remember the TOS, if a statement is made as fact and a link is requested, the poster must supply the link. Please supply a link to substantiate your erroneous claim that alcohol is a listed drug.

[weezer]

william
when they don't like the message they just pull out their knifes and cut the messengers neck. hahaha.

uh - no. that would be orenthal's modis operendi.

i bet the alcohol rehab community that deal with the teenage alcohol addiction problems in America know alcohol is a drug regardless of what the gov has not done.

no one is downplaying the serious problem in America with alcoholism. the debate is your incorrect claim that Nicole had drugs in her system on the night orenthal james simpson butchered her. that is an incorrect statement and could even be taken as victim bashing. :eek:

[weezer]

Any g that believes the government does not classify alcohol as a drug can prove that claim by posting the government list.

"The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6)

Schedule I controlled substances
List of Schedule I drugs

Except ... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." [8]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Under the DEA's interpretation of the CSA, a drug does not necessarily have to have the same abuse potential as heroin or cocaine to merit placement in Schedule I (in fact, cocaine is currently a Schedule II drug due to limited medical use):[10]

When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b).

Sentences for first-time, non-violent offenders convicted of trafficking in Schedule I drugs can easily turn into de facto life sentences when multiple sales are prosecuted in one proceeding.[11] Sentences for violent offenders are much higher.

Drugs in this schedule include

gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), which has been used as a general anaesthetic with minimal side-effects[citation needed] and controlled action but a limited safe dosage range. It was placed in Schedule I in March 2000 after widespread recreational use. Uniquely, this drug is also listed in Schedule III for limited uses, under the trademark Xyrem;
12-Methoxyibogamine (Ibogaine), which has been used in opiate addiction treatment and psychotherapy.
Cannabis (includes cannabinoids found in marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil). Controversy exists about its placement in Schedule I. Although in some states, ie. California it has been place on Schedule II

[William Anthony]

Who died and left a poster the credibility enforcement chief executive officer?

[weezer]

Who died and left a poster the credibility enforcement chief executive officer?

should I take this as a personal attack? because it certainly reads like one.

[William Anthony]

I would take it as a question, if I was you, since you accused me of posting a source that was not credible, which is a personal attack to me.

[William Anthony]

WTH? "The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6)" I thought we were talking about what a drug is.

[martin II]

WTH? "The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6)" I thought we were talking about what a drug is.

Some have more difficulty than others and don't even know it.

[GreenIce]

I've said that Nicole was a casual drug user. I disagree that she was a regular, heavy drug user. The only person I've seen say that is OJS and we all know he had a vested interest in making her look bad.

TV,

The defense could have destroyed Nicole and they did not. Simpson would not hear of it. He did not want Nicole trashed. The only trashing of Nicole during the early days and the criminal trial were done by her family and friends. You only need to read Faye's book and Shelia Weller's book.

The reality in every other murder case is that the victim's life go under the microscope. The police and the detective realize that this is a necessary evil of their job but they need to know the facts, however, in this case, both Ron and Nicole's lives were not put under the microscope. Vanatter is such a liar, he didn't even support his lame ass "potential suspect"--what a loser that guy is!

Any way, I posted what was written in some books, if you have problems with Kris Jenner and others making unkind but truthful statements about Nicole, then take it up with them.

I find very interesting when ever a G is asked to provide examples of the "trashing" Simpson did, none are ever given. Since none are never given, it is really difficult to understand why you feel he trashed her and had a vested interest in trashing Nicole. He had nothing to gain to by this and he knew it.

[William Anthony]

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

[martin II]

Since Nicole was drinking alcohol on the eveming of 6/12 and since alcohol is a drug, then nicole had drugs in her system on 6/12. imo

[weezer]

WTH? "The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6)" I thought we were talking about what a drug is.

we can at least agree that orenthal james simpson had a controlled substance, schedule II in CA, in his system when he was arrested and accused of butchering two human beings. Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown did NOT have drugs in their systems on the night they were murdered by orenthal james simpson.

still waiting on your link to substantiate your claim that alcohol is a drug. :shrug:

[weezer]

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

that's it? that's your link? a 1919 newspaper article? LOL

[weezer]

I would take it as a question, if I was you, since you accused me of posting a source that was not credible, which is a personal attack to me.

oh come on william -- an article by a college activist that didn't even back up what you were claiming can't possibly be considered credible. LOL

[GreenIce]

Once again, the bottom line is that on the night of June 12, 1994 OJS had illegal drugs in his system and Nicole did not. She spent a nice evening at the recital and had dinner with her parents and children and then went home with her children. The only wrong move she made that night was walking out her front door which caused her life to be taken by a brutal murderer -- the father of her children who had illegal drugs in his system.

TV Dinner,

Nicole had illegal drugs in her home. Nicole knowing that Faye was freebasing cocaine, allowed her to do it in her home--the same home she shared with her young children. Nicole was very well known to be the best friend of Faye Resnick, a woman who had slipped back into her addiction, a woman who was homeless and was so terrified for herself and Nicole she begged Nicole to leave the kids and go to a different country with Faye---Nicole didn't listen to her. Nicole is dead and Faye was safe in a locked down rehab facility. Nicole was killed less within a couple of hours after fighting with Faye. Nicole and Simpson did not fight that night. They avoided each other and did not engage in any public behavior that would draw attention to their situation. They were both done, they were both pissed about events that happened after they agreed to split. However, there is no evidence that Nicole either confronted Simpson or he confronted her.

Pot does not make people kill. It is a drug that does have some benefits to it that far out weigh the fact that it is illegal. Are you saying TV if your parents or a close friend of yours was violently ill from treatment and you knew that pot would really help the person, that you would hold it against this person for using it? I have never used it my life but when my dad got sick, I actually asked a couple of teenagers about getting some for him. Since that time, I have different attitude about the drug. I believe it should be be legalized for medical reasons, I understand why that will never happen but I still have no problem turning my head to this type of use.

[tv]

TV,

The defense could have destroyed Nicole and they did not. Simpson would not hear of it. He did not want Nicole trashed. The only trashing of Nicole during the early days and the criminal trial were done by her family and friends. You only need to read Faye's book and Shelia Weller's book. I haven't read either book. Are you saying that Faye Resnick and Sheila Weller stated in their books that OJS wouldn't allow the defense to trash Nicole? What did the Brown family say to about Nicole that was derogatory?

The reality in every other murder case is that the victim's life go under the microscope. The police and the detective realize that this is a necessary evil of their job but they need to know the facts, however, in this case, both Ron and Nicole's lives were not put under the microscope. Vanatter is such a liar, he didn't even support his lame ass "potential suspect"--what a loser that guy is! I don't understand what your feelings about Vannatter have to do with whether or not Nicole was trashed by Simpson. Also, Vannatter had a long career in LE and was a respected detective. He certainly doesn't deserve the title of loser. No one's lies in this case came close to matching the amount of lies told by OJ Simpson.

Any way, I posted what was written in some books, if you have problems with Kris Jenner and others making unkind but truthful statements about Nicole, then take it up with them. Unnecessary comment.

I find very interesting when ever a G is asked to provide examples of the "trashing" Simpson did, none are ever given. Since none are never given, it is really difficult to understand why you feel he trashed her and had a vested interest in trashing Nicole. He had nothing to gain to by this and he knew it.

I can go back and post testimony and statements for you but you can read the testimony from the civil trial for yourself.

[William Anthony]

I said I thought alcohol was classified as a drug and you responded that the federal government did not classify it that way. An article in which the author is apparently against such classification states that it is classified that way by the government but few people know that and a poster decides because this person is an activist that somehow I posted an article that was not credible.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

Nicole had illegal drugs in her home. Nicole knowing that Faye was freebasing cocaine, allowed her to do it in her home--the same home she shared with her young children. Nicole was very well known to be the best friend of Faye Resnick, a woman who had slipped back into her addiction, a woman who was homeless and was so terrified for herself and Nicole she begged Nicole to leave the kids and go to a different country with Faye---Nicole didn't listen to her. Nicole is dead and Faye was safe in a locked down rehab facility. Nicole was killed less within a couple of hours after fighting with Faye. Nicole and Simpson did not fight that night. They avoided each other and did not engage in any public behavior that would draw attention to their situation. They were both done, they were both pissed about events that happened after they agreed to split. However, there is no evidence that Nicole either confronted Simpson or he confronted her.

Pot does not make people kill. It is a drug that does have some benefits to it that far out weigh the fact that it is illegal. Are you saying TV if your parents or a close friend of yours was violently ill from treatment and you knew that pot would really help the person, that you would hold it against this person for using it? I have never used it my life but when my dad got sick, I actually asked a couple of teenagers about getting some for him. Since that time, I have different attitude about the drug. I believe it should be be legalized for medical reasons, I understand why that will never happen but I still have no problem turning my head to this type of use.

I'm trying to honor our truce so with all due respect where do you get this drivel? Much of this is your opinion only or based on Simpson's statements -- who had every reason to lie.

I didn't say pot makes people kill. I've never said anything about pot except that OJ Simpson had it in his system the day after Nicole and Ron were killed. Nothing I've ever said should cause you to go on a tirade to me about pot. You don't know if I'm for or against it. You don't know if I approve of it for medicinal purposes or not.

[William Anthony]

Yes, since 1919 alcohol has been recognized as a drug. :)

[weezer]

I said I thought alcohol was classified as a drug and you responded that the federal government did not classify it that way. An article in which the author is apparently against such classification states that it is classified that way by the government but few people know that and a poster decides because this person is an activist that somehow I posted an article that was not credible.

actually, you have insisted that alcohol is a drug and the article you posted by the college student stated opposite of what you have said you think.

william, a college student writing a statement that claims alcohol is a drug is just a student writing a statement that is unsupported by fact. That is what makes the article you posted not credible. I didn't discount what you posted -- it just was not a credible source to support your claims.

[weezer]

Yes, since 1919 alcohol has been recognized as a drug. :)

riiiiiight -- :punch:

[fgump2]

TV,

The defense could have destroyed Nicole and they did not. Simpson would not hear of it. He did not want Nicole trashed. The only trashing of Nicole during the early days and the criminal trial were done by her family and friends. You only need to read Faye's book and Shelia Weller's book.

The reality in every other murder case is that the victim's life go under the microscope. The police and the detective realize that this is a necessary evil of their job but they need to know the facts, however, in this case, both Ron and Nicole's lives were not put under the microscope. Vanatter is such a liar, he didn't even support his lame ass "potential suspect"--what a loser that guy is!

Any way, I posted what was written in some books, if you have problems with Kris Jenner and others making unkind but truthful statements about Nicole, then take it up with them.

I find very interesting when ever a G is asked to provide examples of the "trashing" Simpson did, none are ever given. Since none are never given, it is really difficult to understand why you feel he trashed her and had a vested interest in trashing Nicole. He had nothing to gain to by this and he knew it.

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

[tv]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

Thank you, fg2. These are just a few examples among many of OJ Simpson losing his temper and lying about it and of putting Nicole in a negative light.

[William Anthony]

Let's be clear. The author stated what I thought. He said that very few people know that the government classifies alcohol as a drug. He then went on to say that he was of the opinion that alcohol should not be classified in the same manner as actual drugs, to which I disagree. I think those who recognized that alcohol was a drug as far back as 1919 and the federal government prohibited its use were correct, even though I love an occasional drink but the I loved a drink and a fix at any time.

[weezer]

Let's be clear. The author stated what I thought. He said that very few people know that the government classifies alcohol as a drug. He then went on to say that he was of the opinion that alcohol should not be classified in the same manner as actual drugs, to which I disagree. I think those who recognized that alcohol was a drug as far back as 1919 and the federal government prohibited its use were correct, even though I love an occasional drink but the I loved a drink and a fix at any time.

Let's be very clear and then this discussion is over. I have asked for a link to a credible source (not a college activist making a statement and not an article from 1919) that substantiates your erroneous claim that the government classifies alcohol as a drug and you have yet to provide that link. On the other hand, I have provided a link that substantiates my claim that alcohol is not listed as a drug by the government. fini ;)

[William Anthony]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion.

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

WTH? I will place in bold where he took the blame.

[weezer]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

doesn't that seem to be the pattern of orenthal's life? he beat Nicole but it was her fault; he was on dope but Nicole was on more dope (proven to be exactly opposite by the lab results of course); Nicole ran around with Heidi Fleiss type people but he was the one wh*ring around; he committed armed robbery but somebody else made him do it. Geez -- speaking of losers.

[tv]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion
I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

We know what happens when he gets REALLY mad! :eek:

[William Anthony]

Let's be very clear and, if I need go back, I will as I never claimed the federal government listed alcohol as a drug but you claimed the government did not list it that way. I provided a link that says it is. You have not provided any link that says alcohol is not listed as a drug by the federal government. You have provided a definition of what a controlled substance is and that link you provided only relies on another statute to define alcohol. I provided a link from the New York Times stating that Alcohol was a drug in 1919 and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED ITS USE. :) The fact that something is controlled or uncontrolled by the government or that it is illegal or legal does not make it a drug.

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/rbook/drug.html

It is the effect that such a substance has on the person taking it.

[William Anthony]

He plead no lo contendre to domestic abuse.

[William Anthony]

We know what happens when he gets REALLY mad! :eek:

That mouse seems to be passing from pocket to pocket. :)

[weezer]

Let's be very clear and, if I need go back, I will as I never claimed the federal government listed alcohol as a drug but you claimed the government did not list it that way. I provided a link that says it is. You have not provided any link that says alcohol is not listed as a drug by the federal government. You have provided a definition of what a controlled substance is and that link you provided only relies on another statute to define alcohol. I provided a link from the New York Times stating that Alcohol was a drug in 1919 and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED ITS USE. :) The fact that something is controlled or uncontrolled by the government or that it is illegal or legal does not make it a drug.

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/rbook/drug.html

It is the effect that such a substance has on the person taking it.

I see marijuana -- do you see alcohol?

Schedule I
Substance DEA Number Non Narcotic Other Names
1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine 7458 N PCPy, PHP, rolicyclidine
1-(2-Phenylethyl)-4-phenyl-4-
acetoxypiperidine 9663 PEPAP, synthetic heroin
1-[1-(2-
Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine 7470 N TCP, tenocyclidine
1-[1-(2-
Thienyl)cyclohexyl]pyrrolidine 7473 N TCPy
1-Methyl-4-phenyl-4-
propionoxypiperidine 9661 MPPP, synthetic heroin
2,5-Dimethoxy-4-
ethylamphetamine 7399 N DOET
2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine 7396 N DMA, 2,5-DMA
3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine 7390 N TMA
3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine 7400 N MDA, Love Drug
3,4-
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine 7405 N MDMA, Ecstasy, XTC
3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-
ethylamphetamine 7404 N N-ethyl MDA, MDE, MDEA
3-Methylfentanyl 9813 China White, fentanyl
3-Methylthiofentanyl 9833 Chine White, fentanyl
4-Bromo-2,5-
dimethoxyamphetamine 7391 N DOB, 4-bromo-DMA
4-Bromo-2,5-
dimethoxyphenethylamine 7392 N Nexus, 2-CB, has been sold as Ecstasy, i.e. MDMA
4-Methoxyamphetamine 7411 N PMA
4-Methyl-2,5-
dimethoxyamphetamine 7395 N DOM, STP
4-Methylaminorex (cis isomer) 1590 N U4Euh, McN-422
5-Methoxy-3,4-
methylenedioxyamphetamine 7401 N MMDA
Acetorphine 9319
Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl 9815
Acetyldihydrocodeine 9051 Acetylcodone
Acetylmethadol 9601 Methadyl acetate
Allylprodine 9602
Alphacetylmethadol except levo-alphacetylmethadol 9603
Alpha-Ethyltryptamine 7249 N ET, Trip
Alphameprodine 9604
Alphamethadol 9605
Alpha-Methylfentanyl 9814 China White, fentanyl
Alpha-Methylthiofentanyl 9832 China White, fentanyl
Aminorex 1585 N has been sold as methamphetamine
Benzethidine 9606
Benzylmorphine 9052
Betacetylmethadol 9607
Beta-Hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl 9831 China White, fentanyl
Beta-Hydroxyfentanyl 9830 China White, fentanyl
Betameprodine 9608
Betamethadol 9609
Betaprodine 9611
Bufotenine 7433 N Mappine, N,N-dimethylserotonin
Cathinone 1235 N Constituent of "Khat" plant
Clonitazene 9612
Codeine methylbromide 9070
Codeine-N-oxide 9053
Cyprenorphine 9054
Desomorphine 9055
Dextromoramide 9613 Palfium, Jetrium, Narcolo
Diampromide 9615
Diethylthiambutene 9616
Diethyltryptamine 7434 N DET
Difenoxin 9168 Lyspafen
Dihydromorphine 9145
Dimenoxadol 9617
Dimepheptanol 9618
Dimethylthiambutene 9619
Dimethyltryptamine 7435 N DMT
Dioxaphetyl butyrate 9621
Dipipanone 9622 Dipipan, phenylpiperone HCl, Diconal, Wellconal
Drotebanol 9335 Metebanyl, oxymethebanol
Ethylmethylthiambutene 9623
Etonitazene 9624
Etorphine (except HCl) 9056
Etoxeridine 9625
Fenethylline 1503 N Captagon,amfetyline,ethyltheophylline amphetamine
Furethidine 9626
Gama Hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB) 2010 N GHB, gama hydroxybutyrate, sodium oxybate
Heroin 9200 Diacetylmorphine, diamorphine
Hydromorphinol 9301
Hydroxypethidine 9627
Ibogaine 7260 N Constituent of "Tabernanthe iboga" plant
Ketobemidone 9628 Cliradon
Levomoramide 9629
Levophenacylmorphan 9631
Lysergic acid diethylamide 7315 N LSD, lysergide
Marijuana 7360 N Cannabis, marijuana Mecloqualone 2572 N Nubarene
Mescaline 7381 N Constituent of "Peyote" cacti
Methaqualone 2565 N Quaalude, Parest, Somnafac, Opitimil, Mandrax
Methcathinone 1237 N N-Methylcathinone, "cat"
Methyldesorphine 9302
Methyldihydromorphine 9304
Morpheridine 9632
Morphine methylbromide 9305
Morphine methylsulfonate 9306
Morphine-N-oxide 9307
Myrophine 9308
N,N-Dimethylamphetamine 1480 N
N-Ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine 7455 N PCE
N-Ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate 7482 N JB 323
N-Ethylamphetamine 1475 N NEA
N-Hydroxy-3,4-
methylenedioxyamphetamine 7402 N N-hydroxy MDA
Nicocodeine 9309
Nicomorphine 9312 Vilan
N-Methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate 7484 N JB 336
Noracymethadol 9633
Norlevorphanol 9634
Normethadone 9635 Phenyldimazone
Normorphine 9313
Norpipanone 9636
Para-Fluorofentanyl 9812 China White, fentanyl
Parahexyl 7374 N Synhexyl,
Peyote 7415 N Cactus which contains mescaline
Phenadoxone 9637
Phenampromide 9638
Phenomorphan 9647
Phenoperidine 9641 Operidine, Lealgin
Pholcodine 9314 Copholco, Adaphol, Codisol, Lantuss, Pholcolin
Piritramide 9642 Piridolan
Proheptazine 9643
Properidine 9644
Propiram 9649 Algeril
Psilocybin 7437 N Constituent of "Magic mushrooms"
Psilocyn 7438 N Psilocin, constituent of "Magic mushrooms"
Racemoramide 9645
Tetrahydrocannabinols 7370 N THC, Delta-8 THC, Delta-9 THC and others
Thebacon 9315 Acetylhydrocodone, Acedicon, Thebacetyl
Thiofentanyl 9835 Chine white, fentanyl
Tilidine 9750 Tilidate, Valoron, Kitadol, Lak, Tilsa
Trimeperidine 9646 Promedolum

[weezer]

Schedule II
1-Phenylcyclohexylamine 7460 N Precusor of PCP
1-Piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile 8603 N PCC, precusor of PCP
Alfentanil 9737 Alfenta
Alphaprodine 9010 Nisentil
Amobarbital 2125 N Amytal, Tuinal
Amphetamine 1100 N Dexedrine, Biphetamine
Anileridine 9020 Leritine
Benzoylecgonine 9180 Cocaine metabolite
Bezitramide 9800 Burgodin
Carfentanil 9743 Wildnil
Coca Leaves 9040
Cocaine 9041 Methyl benzoylecgonine, Crack
Codeine 9050 Morphine methyl ester, methyl morphine
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) 9273 Propoxyphene
Dihydrocodeine 9120 Didrate, Parzone
Diphenoxylate 9170
Diprenorphine 9058 M50-50
Ecgonine 9180 Cocaine precursor, in Coca leaves
Ethylmorphine 9190 Dionin
Etorphine HCl 9059 M 99
Fentanyl 9801 Innovar, Sublimaze, Duragesic
Glutethimide 2550 N Doriden, Dorimide
Hydrocodone 9193 dihydrocodeinone
Hydromorphone 9150 Dilaudid, dihydromorphinone
Isomethadone 9226 Isoamidone
Levo-alphacetylmethadol 9648 LAAM, long acting methadone, levomethadyl acetate
Levomethorphan 9210
Levorphanol 9220 Levo-Dromoran
Meperidine 9230 Demerol, Mepergan, pethidine
Meperidine intermediate-A 9232 Meperidine precursor
Meperidine intermediate-B 9233 Meperidine precursor
Meperidine intermediate-C 9234 Meperidine precursor
Metazocine 9240
Methadone 9250 Dolophine, Methadose, Amidone
Methadone intermediate 9254 Methadone precursor
Methamphetamine 1105 N Desoxyn, D-desoxyephedrine, ICE, Crank, Speed
Methylphenidate 1724 N Ritalin
Metopon 9260
Moramide-intermediate 9802
Morphine 9300 MS Contin, Roxanol, Duramorph, RMS, MSIR
Nabilone 7379 N Cesamet
Opium extracts 9610
Opium fluid extract 9620
Opium poppy 9650 Papaver somniferum
Opium tincture 9630 Laudanum
Opium, granulated 9640 Granulated opium
Opium, powdered 9639 Powdered Opium
Opium, raw 9600 Raw opium, gum opium
Oxycodone 9143 OxyContin, Percocet, Tylox, Roxicodone, Roxicet,
Oxymorphone 9652 Numorphan
Pentobarbital 2270 N Nembutal
Phenazocine 9715 Narphen, Prinadol
Phencyclidine 7471 N PCP, Sernylan
Phenmetrazine 1631 N Preludin
Phenylacetone 8501 N P2P, phenyl-2-propanone, benzyl methyl ketone
Piminodine 9730
Poppy Straw 9650 Opium poppy capsules, poppy heads
Poppy Straw Concentrate 9670 Concentrate of Poppy Straw, CPS
Racemethorphan 9732
Racemorphan 9733 Dromoran
Remifentanil 9739 Ultiva
Secobarbital 2315 N Seconal, Tuinal
Sufentanil 9740 Sufenta
Thebaine 9333 Precursor of many narcotics

[weezer]

Schedule III
Amobarbital & noncontrolled active ingred. 2126 N Amobarbital/ephedrine capsules
Amobarbital suppository dosage form 2126 N
Anabolic steroids 4000 N "Body Building" drugs
Aprobarbital 2100 N Alurate
Barbituric acid derivative 2100 N Barbiturates not specifically listed
Benzphetamine 1228 N Didrex, Inapetyl
Boldenone 4000 N Equipoise, Parenabol, Vebonol, dehydrotestosterone
Buprenorphine 9064 Buprenex, Temgesic
Butabarbital 2100 N Butisol, Butibel
Butalbital 2100 N Fiorinal, Butalbital with aspirin
Chlorhexadol 2510 N Mechloral, Mecoral, Medodorm, Chloralodol
Chlorotestosterone (same as clostebol) 4000 N if 4-chlorotestosterone then clostebol
Chlorphentermine 1645 N Pre-Sate, Lucofen, Apsedon, Desopimon
Clortermine 1647 N Voranil
Clostebol 4000 N Alfa-Trofodermin, Clostene, 4-chlorotestosterone
Codeine & isoquinoline alkaloid 90 mg/du 9803 Codeine with papaverine or noscapine
Codeine combination product 90 mg/du 9804 Empirin, Fiorinal, Tylenol, ASA or APAP w/codeine
Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone 4000 N Oral-Turinabol
Dihydrocodeine combination product 90 mg/du 9807 Synalgos-DC, Compal
Dihydrotestosterone (same as stanolone) 4000 N see stanolone
Dronabinol in sesame oil in soft gelatin capsule 7369 N Marinol, synthetic THC in sesame oil/soft gelatin
Drostanolone 4000 N Drolban, Masterid, Permastril
Ethylestrenol 4000 N Maxibolin, Orabolin, Durabolin-O, Duraboral
Ethylmorphine combination product 15 mg/du 9808
Fluoxymesterone 4000 N Anadroid-F, Halotestin, Ora-Testryl
Formebolone (incorrect spelling in law) 4000 N Esiclene, Hubernol
Hydrocodone & isoquinoline alkaloid 15 mg/du 9805 Dihydrocodeinone+papaverine or noscapine
Hydrocodone combination product 15 mg/du 9806 Tussionex, Tussend, Lortab, Vicodin, Hycodan, Anexsia ++
Ketamine 7285 N Ketaset, Ketalar, Special K, K
Lysergic acid 7300 N LSD precursor
Lysergic acid amide 7310 N LSD precursor
Mesterolone 4000 N Proviron
Methandienone (see Methandrostenolone) 4000 N
Methandranone 4000 N ?incorrect spelling of methandienone?
Methandriol 4000 N Sinesex, Stenediol, Troformone
Methandrostenolone 4000 N Dianabol, Metabolina, Nerobol, Perbolin
Methenolone 4000 N Primobolan, Primobolan Depot, Primobolan S
Methyltestosterone 4000 N Android, Oreton, Testred, Virilon
Methyprylon 2575 N Noludar
Mibolerone 4000 N Cheque
Morphine combination product/50 mg/100 ml or gm 9810
Nalorphine 9400 Nalline
Nandrolone 4000 N Deca-Durabolin, Durabolin, Durabolin-50
Norethandrolone 4000 N Nilevar, Solevar
Opium combination product 25 mg/du 9809 Paregoric, other combination products
Oxandrolone 4000 N Anavar, Lonavar, Provitar, Vasorome
Oxymesterone 4000 N Anamidol, Balnimax, Oranabol, Oranabol 10
Oxymetholone 4000 N Anadrol-50, Adroyd, Anapolon, Anasteron, Pardroyd
Pentobarbital & noncontrolled active ingred. 2271 N FP-3
Pentobarbital suppository dosage form 2271 N WANS
Phendimetrazine 1615 N Plegine, Prelu-2, Bontril, Melfiat, Statobex
Secobarbital & noncontrolled active ingred 2316 N various
Secobarbital suppository dosage form 2316 N various
Stanolone 4000 N Anabolex, Andractim, Pesomax, dihydrotestosterone
Stanozolol 4000 N Winstrol, Winstrol-V
Stimulant compounds previously excepted 1405 N Mediatric
Sulfondiethylmethane 2600 N
Sulfonethylmethane 2605 N
Sulfonmethane 2610 N
Talbutal 2100 N Lotusate
Testolactone 4000 N Teslac
Testosterone 4000 N Android-T, Androlan, Depotest, Delatestryl
Thiamylal 2100 N Surital
Thiopental 2100 N Pentothal
Tiletamine & Zolazepam Combination Product 7295 N Telazol
Trenbolone 4000 N Finaplix-S, Finajet, Parabolan
Vinbarbital 2100 N Delvinal, vinbarbitone
Schedule IV
Alprazolam 2882 N Xanax
Barbital 2145 N Veronal, Plexonal, barbitone
Bromazepam 2748 N Lexotan, Lexatin, Lexotanil
Butorphanol 9720 N Stadol, Stadol NS, Torbugesic, Torbutrol
Camazepam 2749 N Albego, Limpidon, Paxor
Cathine 1230 N Constituent of "Khat" plant
Chloral betaine 2460 N Beta Chlor
Chloral hydrate 2465 N Noctec
Chlordiazepoxide 2744 N Librium, Libritabs, Limbitrol, SK-Lygen
Clobazam 2751 N Urbadan, Urbanyl
Clonazepam 2737 N Klonopin, Clonopin
Clorazepate 2768 N Tranxene
Clotiazepam 2752 N Trecalmo, Rize
Cloxazolam 2753 N Enadel, Sepazon, Tolestan
Delorazepam 2754 N
Dexfenfluramine 1670 N Redux
Dextropropoxyphene dosage forms 9278 Darvon, propoxyphene, Darvocet, Dolene, Propacet
Diazepam 2765 N Valium, Valrelease
Dichloralphenazone 2467 N Midrin, dichloralantipyrine
Diethylpropion 1610 N Tenuate, Tepanil
Difenoxin 1 mg/25 ug AtSO4/du 9167 Motofen
Estazolam 2756 N ProSom, Domnamid, Eurodin, Nuctalon
Ethchlorvynol 2540 N Placidyl
Ethinamate 2545 N Valmid, Valamin
Ethyl loflazepate 2758 N
Fencamfamin 1760 N Reactivan
Fenfluramine 1670 N Pondimin, Ponderal
Fenproporex 1575 N Gacilin, Solvolip
Fludiazepam 2759 N
Flunitrazepam 2763 N Rohypnol, Narcozep, Darkene, Roipnol
Flurazepam 2767 N Dalmane
Halazepam 2762 N Paxipam
Haloxazolam 2771 N
Ketazolam 2772 N Anxon, Loftran, Solatran, Contamex
Loprazolam 2773 N
Lorazepam 2885 N Ativan
Lormetazepam 2774 N Noctamid
Mazindol 1605 N Sanorex, Mazanor
Mebutamate 2800 N Capla
Medazepam 2836 N Nobrium
Mefenorex 1580 N Anorexic, Amexate, Doracil, Pondinil
Meprobamate 2820 N Miltown, Equanil, Deprol, Equagesic, Meprospan
Methohexital 2264 N Brevital
Methylphenobarbital (mephobarbital) 2250 N Mebaral, mephobarbital
Midazolam 2884 N Versed
Modafinil 1680 N Provigil
Nimetazepam 2837 N Erimin
Nitrazepam 2834 N Mogadon
Nordiazepam 2838 N Nordazepam, Demadar, Madar
Oxazepam 2835 N Serax, Serenid-D
Oxazolam 2839 N Serenal, Convertal
Paraldehyde 2585 N Paral
Pemoline 1530 N Cylert
Pentazocine 9709 N Talwin, Talwin NX, Talacen, Talwin Compound
Petrichloral 2591 N Pentaerythritol chloral, Periclor
Phenobarbital 2285 N Luminal, Donnatal, Bellergal-S
Phentermine 1640 N Ionamin, Fastin, Adipex-P, Obe-Nix, Zantryl
Pinazepam 2883 N Domar
Pipradrol 1750 N Detaril, Stimolag Fortis
Prazepam 2764 N Centrax
Quazepam 2881 N Doral, Dormalin
Sibutramine 1675 N Meridia
SPA 1635 N 1-dimethylamino-1,2-diphenylethane, Lefetamine
Temazepam 2925 N Restoril
Tetrazepam 2886 N
Triazolam 2887 N Halcion
Zaleplon 2781 N Sonata
Zolpidem 2783 N Ambien, Stilnoct,Ivadal
Schedule V
Codeine preparations - 200 mg/100 ml or 100 gm Cosanyl,Robitussin A-C,Cheracol,Cerose,Pediacof
Difenoxin preparations - 0.5 mg/25 ug AtSO4/du Motofen
Dihydrocodeine preparations 10 mg/100 ml or 100 gm Cophene-S, various others
Diphenoxylate preparations 2.5 mg/25 ug AtSO4 Lomotil, Logen
Ethylmorphine preparations 100 mg/100 ml or 100 gm
Opium preparations - 100 mg/100 ml or gm Parepectolin, Kapectolin PG, Kaolin Pectin P.G.
Pyrovalerone 1485 N Centroton, Thymergix

[weezer]

oh -- guess I need to post the link: Drug Scheduling
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

[William Anthony]

"This document is a general reference and not a comprehensive list. This list describes the basic or parent chemical and does not describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be controlled substances. For a comprehensive list, click here."

[weezer]

"This document is a general reference and not a comprehensive list. This list describes the basic or parent chemical and does not describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be controlled substances. For a comprehensive list, click here."

and being the smart guy that I just know you are, you clicked the link and found that alcohol isn't listed there either! ;)

[martin II]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.


I think it shows a bit of control that he hit HIS car and not nicole.

[martin II]

i don't think alcohol would be listed on a narcotic schedule.

[weezer]

i don't think alcohol would be listed on a narcotic schedule.

william requested a link that showed alcohol was not listed as a drug -- I provided it. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

i don't think alcohol would be listed on a narcotic schedule.

You are very astute and I hate to keep repeating myself but here is the Title of the United States Code to which the other poster refers.

http://www.techlawreporter.com/toa/codes/usc/titles/TITLE21/21USC321.html

Here is the definition of DRUG as used in that title

"(g)(1) The term ''drug'' means (A) articles recognized in the
official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic
Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary,
or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use
in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of
disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food)
intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man
or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component
of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or
dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections
343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B)
and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the
requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug solely
because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food,
dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and
not misleading statement is made in accordance with section
343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely
because the label or the labeling contains such a statement. "

I guess it is necessary for me to repeat myself so that an understanding can be reached. So, here goes. You have not provided any link that says alcohol is not listed as a drug by the federal government. You have provided a definition of what a controlled substance is and that link you provided only relies on another statute to define alcohol. I provided a link from the New York Times stating that Alcohol was a drug in 1919 and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED ITS USE. The fact that something is controlled or uncontrolled by the government or that it is illegal or legal does not make it a drug.

[weezer]

You are very astute and I hate to keep repeating myself but here is the Title of the United States Code to which the other poster refers.

http://www.techlawreporter.com/toa/codes/usc/titles/TITLE21/21USC321.html

Here is the definition of DRUG as used in that title

"(g)(1) The term ''drug'' means (A) articles recognized in the
official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic
Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary,
or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use
in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of
disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food)
intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man
or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component
of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or
dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections
343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B)
and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the
requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug solely
because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food,
dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and
not misleading statement is made in accordance with section
343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely
because the label or the labeling contains such a statement. "

I guess it is necessary for me to repeat myself so that an understanding can be reached. So, here goes. You have not provided any link that says alcohol is not listed as a drug by the federal government. You have provided a definition of what a controlled substance is and that link you provided only relies on another statute to define alcohol. I provided a link from the New York Times stating that Alcohol was a drug in 1919 and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED ITS USE. The fact that something is controlled or uncontrolled by the government or that it is illegal or legal does not make it a drug.

LOL -- not only did I provide the definition, I provided the complete list from the DOJ. this could possibly come as a surprise, but I'm thinking DOJ may be more up on what is listed as a drug then a 1919 newpaper article. LOL

[tv]

I think it shows a bit of control that he hit HIS car and not nicole.

Why did he refer to the windshield as 'her' windshield? Why do you think it's admirable for him to even have the feeling that he wanted to hit her with the baseball bat? Too bad he didn't exercise the same 'control' on June 12, 1994.

[William Anthony]

Let me again repeat myself as it is necessary.

"This document is a general reference and not a comprehensive list. This list describes the basic or parent chemical and does not describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be controlled substances. For a comprehensive list, click here."

I said alcohol was a drug and I did not say anything about it being on the government's controlled substance list. I posted three links that state alcohol is a drug, one on prohibition, one from a student activist and the other from the government's own definition under the title the other poster refers.

[weezer]

Let me again repeat myself as it is necessary.

"This document is a general reference and not a comprehensive list. This list describes the basic or parent chemical and does not describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be controlled substances. For a comprehensive list, click here."

I said alcohol was a drug and I did not say anything about it being on the government's controlled substance list. I posted three links that state alcohol is a drug, one on prohibition, one from a student activist and the other from the government's own definition under the title the other poster refers.

don't take this wrong because it's only my personal observation but I believe if you don't mature to the point of being able to admit when you are wrong, you're going to have a tough time in life.

with that said, I'm going to sign off. I don't want to argue and if I stay, I'm afraid I'd have to say something to one poster about an uncalled post -- and I know when I've used the word 'pig' in the past, it's caused hard feelings. So goodnight.

[William Anthony]

I have never had a problem standing corrected. I said what I said. I do have a problem with posters, who try to make me say something I did not. I said it would be more accurate to say that Simpson was not the only found to have drugs in his system and that I believed alcohol to be a drug. You brought up the issue of it being listed as a drug by the government and now you want to rely on a Title of the United States Code, Title 21, dealing with controlled substances and I provided a definition from that title as to what a drug is, which Alcohol fits neatly within that definition. I think it would show a level of maturity and please don't take this the wrong way, if you would once admit that you are wrong.

[weezer]

I have never had a problem standing corrected. I said what I said. I do have a problem with posters, who try to make me say something I did not. I said it would be more accurate to say that Simpson was not the only found to have drugs in his system and that I believed alcohol to be a drug. You brought up the issue of it being listed as a drug by the government and now you want to rely on a Title of the United States Code, Title 21, dealing with controlled substances and I provided a definition from that title as to what a drug is, which Alcohol fits neatly within that definition. I think it would show a level of maturity and please don't take this the wrong way, if you would once admit that you are wrong.

ahh -- you see william that's the difference between the two of us (one of many) -- I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. The problem is this time I am right and you're the one that is wrong. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Please, post one post where you said you were wrong or stood corrected and include the date?

[martin II]

Again one would not expect the drug alcohol to be listed on a narcotic schedule.

[weezer]

Please, post one post where you said you were wrong or stood corrected and include the date?

nah -- you go first. :rolleyes:

[GreenIce]

My opinion is if alcohol were a drug the government would classify it as such. If you'll notice the phrase is 'drug and alcohol rehab' not 'drug and drug' rehab or 'so and so has an alcohol problem' not 'so and so has a liquid drug problem'.

TV,

The government does classify alcohol as a drug as well as cigerettes. I am pretty sure you have heard of the ATF department--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Alcohol and tobacco bring in major bucks---which is why the taxes on these products are so high.

[tv]

TV,

The government does classify alcohol as a drug as well as cigerettes. I am pretty sure you have heard of the ATF department--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Alcohol and tobacco bring in major bucks---which is why the taxes on these products are so high.

The government classifies cigarettes as a drug? How about firearms?

[GreenIce]

I'm trying to honor our truce so with all due respect where do you get this drivel? Much of this is your opinion only or based on Simpson's statements -- who had every reason to lie.

I didn't say pot makes people kill. I've never said anything about pot except that OJ Simpson had it in his system the day after Nicole and Ron were killed. Nothing I've ever said should cause you to go on a tirade to me about pot. You don't know if I'm for or against it. You don't know if I approve of it for medicinal purposes or not.

TV Dinner,

Not sure which "drivel" you are talking about. Faye was living with Nicole a few days prior to the murder. She had slipped back into her addiction and she was living with Nicole. It was in Faye's book where she said she pleaded with Nicole to go away with her and they were in danger. Nicole blew her off. Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson but that doesn't make sense, she had nothing to fear from him.

Nicole thought Faye was paranoid and a "drama queen"--however, her death, IMO proves that Faye was not being paranoid because of her drug abuse nor does it appear that she was being a drama queen on this issue.

I agree with that Simpson had every reason to lie, he knew what people wanted to hear from and he refused to say it. IMO, his story never changed and even when given the opportunity to change it, he did not do so.

It was triade that I was one--it was just from personal experience. I have a family member who has the same type of condition that Simpson has and I know the crippling pain that comes with it. I know some of the treatments are also very painful and can create horrific nausea and the only thing that helps is pot. I find it very plausable that Simpson was not smoking pot for recreation, but rather for a medical reason.

It appears to me that G's are making the most outrageous comments about Simpson smoking pot vs the hard core drugs that were involved.

I have also posted that neither Ron or Nicole had to be users of the drugs to be involved with them. I have also posted that Ron may have been mistaken for carrying drugs on that night. The Mezzaluna was rumored to be a hot spot for scoring drugs. Nicole's could have been associated with drugs because of who her friends were.

[GreenIce]

The government classifies cigarettes as a drug? How about firearms?

TV,

I think it is about the laws and the taxes and making sure the state and federal governments get their cut. I have no clue why the firearms are linked with the other two.

[martin II]

TV,

The government does classify alcohol as a drug as well as cigerettes. I am pretty sure you have heard of the ATF department--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Alcohol and tobacco bring in major bucks---which is why the taxes on these products are so high.

good point.

[martin II]

TV,

I think it is about the laws and the taxes and making sure the state and federal governments get their cut. I have no clue why the firearms are linked with the other two.

i think it is just a matter of lumping three money makers into one profit center.

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

Not sure which "drivel" you are talking about. Faye was living with Nicole a few days prior to the murder. She had slipped back into her addiction and she was living with Nicole. It was in Faye's book where she said she pleaded with Nicole to go away with her and they were in danger. Nicole blew her off. Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson but that doesn't make sense, she had nothing to fear from him.

Nicole thought Faye was paranoid and a "drama queen"--however, her death, IMO proves that Faye was not being paranoid because of her drug abuse nor does it appear that she was being a drama queen on this issue.

I agree with that Simpson had every reason to lie, he knew what people wanted to hear from and he refused to say it. IMO, his story never changed and even when given the opportunity to change it, he did not do so.

It was triade that I was one--it was just from personal experience. I have a family member who has the same type of condition that Simpson has and I know the crippling pain that comes with it. I know some of the treatments are also very painful and can create horrific nausea and the only thing that helps is pot. I find it very plausable that Simpson was not smoking pot for recreation, but rather for a medical reason.

It appears to me that G's are making the most outrageous comments about Simpson smoking pot vs the hard core drugs that were involved.

I have also posted that neither Ron or Nicole had to be users of the drugs to be involved with them. I have also posted that Ron may have been mistaken for carrying drugs on that night. The Mezzaluna was rumored to be a hot spot for scoring drugs. Nicole's could have been associated with drugs because of who her friends were.

* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".

* Al Cowlings once served as a bodyguard for convicted drug smuggler Joey Ippolito. Ippolito escaped from a Florida jail three weeks before the murders and made many calls to Simpson. According to the theory, Ippolito probably hired a hitman to commit the drug related murders. Frankie Viserto is one hitman known to be close to Ippolito. In the past, Viserto has tortured and beheaded his victims with a knife.
* Nicole's sister Denise Brown was often seen and photographed with ex-Mob enforcer and FBI informant Tony Fiato, a recruit of Ippolito. Denise denied that Fiato was her boyfriend.

Ippolito had some ownership in Mazzaluna resturant.

[GreenIce]

THe term term trashing an individual is subjective. On his Jan 25, 1996 deposition Mr. SImpson said she was associating with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes0, and talked about Nicole sucking another man's (Keith -) ****. I think if he wanted to talk about stuff like that, he could have used more discreet language.

There is a related matter in that SImpson almost never admitted making a mistake in dealing with others. He describes an incident in which he broke a car windshield with a baseball bat, and made it sound like the incident didin't involve anger or even an argument. This is from the Jan 25 testimony:
Q: Now, in I984 there is an incident where you smashed Nicole's car with a baseball bat. Is that true?
A: I hit her windshield, yes.
Q: And you broke the windshield?
A: It cracked, yes.
Q: And where was the baseball bat when you got it?
A: I don't know. Somewhere around my house.
Q: And where was the car?
A: In the front yard.
Q: And you were arguing with Nicole where?
A: I don't know if it was an argument. I wouldn't characterize this as an argument. We were having a discussion

I think when an adult hits a car windshield with a baseball bat, there was anger involved, there had to be an argument.
I challenge any of the NG people to find as many as two or three times when Simpson either admitted to loosing his temper, or behaving foolishly.
The way it comes accross to me is that he thinks he never made a serious mistake. If something went wrong, it was someone elses fault.

fgump2,

To this day, I not exactly sure what the whole fight was. However, in regards to Nicole's friends, it appears that Nicole was talking to one of these friends about the 1989 incident and/or that Nicole was afraid of catching AIDS from Simpson because he was such a womanizer. Apparently, a friend of her's sold the story and the story was repeated almost word for word. I think anybody would be angry about reading this in a tabloid.

However, what is strange, Nicole did not seem to be upset that a friend of her's sold her story to a tabloid. However, it is possible that enough time had passed where Nicole may have dealt with this person as well as gotten over her anger.

I agree with you that a person taking a baseball bat to a car is not an act one does just for fun--unless you are paying to take a whack at a wreck, another fad that I never got!

However, I do believe it is possible to act in anger and not have an argument. IMO, Nicole may have confronted Simpson with her belief that he was cheating on her and he did not get into a verbal sparring match with her, just cracked the windshield.

What is important about this incident, IMO, is that Nicole call the police when she herself was not being threatened. She was pissed because Simpson broke her windshield. I have no problem with her being angry however, 911 phone calls should be made for emergencies and a cracked windshield, IMO, is not an emergency. No where in Fuhrman's report did he mention that Nicole felt threatened by Simpson or that Simpson verbally threatened her.

When you tie this into the 1993 incident, it really falls into the same pattern. Nicole was at first pissed about his being back, his record, and breaking the door. IMO, it seemed to me that Nicole was angry about broken property. Why her voiced turned to fear, I don't know. She never said that Simpson had threatened her or even approached her. I don't think Simpson even knew she called the police until much later. I know what she said about him going to "beat the s---t out of her" but she never explained why she thought he was going to hit her.

Yes, Simpson did see Nicole in a romantic act with another man. What did he do, he rang the door bell and walked away. He didn't even stay there long enough to know that they did not hear it. Sorry, if Simpson was a jealous man or a stalker, he would have ruined that little Kodac moment in a heartbeat, IMO.

Simpson and Nicole wrote each other letters. Both accepting their fair share of the blame for certain incidents in their marriage. None of us were privy to all their private conversations. Neither one claimed to be perfect. IMO.

[martin II]

The government classifies cigarettes as a drug? How about firearms?

You don't think nicotine is a drug?

[GreenIce]

* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".

* Al Cowlings once served as a bodyguard for convicted drug smuggler Joey Ippolito. Ippolito escaped from a Florida jail three weeks before the murders and made many calls to Simpson. According to the theory, Ippolito probably hired a hitman to commit the drug related murders. Frankie Viserto is one hitman known to be close to Ippolito. In the past, Viserto has tortured and beheaded his victims with a knife.
* Nicole's sister Denise Brown was often seen and photographed with ex-Mob enforcer and FBI informant Tony Fiato, a recruit of Ippolito. Denise denied that Fiato was her boyfriend.

Ippolito had some ownership in Mazzaluna resturant.

In Robert Shapiro's book, he talks about some of the things they learned about Nicole and that it was very compelling. However, he said that because of the length of the case, they only put on 40 percent of their case and that Simpson did not want Nicole trashed. Her sister, Denise, well that was a different matter. Shapiro said because they did not need to reveal this evidence in the trial, he was not going to reveal it in his book.

Pat McKenna also found some interesting things, concerning drugs, but it had nothing to do with Faye Resnick.

What I find interesting is that Simpson knew about Faye's drug issues and that she was forced into rehab, yet he never tries to steer the detectives in that direction, in fact, I think he said he did not believe this person had anything to do with the murders. IMO, had Simpson been the killer, he would have steered them in this direction, again, IMO.

[martin II]

fgump2,

To this day, I not exactly sure what the whole fight was. However, in regards to Nicole's friends, it appears that Nicole was talking to one of these friends about the 1989 incident and/or that Nicole was afraid of catching AIDS from Simpson because he was such a womanizer. Apparently, a friend of her's sold the story and the story was repeated almost word for word. I think anybody would be angry about reading this in a tabloid.

However, what is strange, Nicole did not seem to be upset that a friend of her's sold her story to a tabloid. However, it is possible that enough time had passed where Nicole may have dealt with this person as well as gotten over her anger.

I agree with you that a person taking a baseball bat to a car is not an act one does just for fun--unless you are paying to take a whack at a wreck, another fad that I never got!

However, I do believe it is possible to act in anger and not have an argument. IMO, Nicole may have confronted Simpson with her belief that he was cheating on her and he did not get into a verbal sparring match with her, just cracked the windshield.

What is important about this incident, IMO, is that Nicole call the police when she herself was not being threatened. She was pissed because Simpson broke her windshield. I have no problem with her being angry however, 911 phone calls should be made for emergencies and a cracked windshield, IMO, is not an emergency. No where in Fuhrman's report did he mention that Nicole felt threatened by Simpson or that Simpson verbally threatened her.

When you tie this into the 1993 incident, it really falls into the same pattern. Nicole was at first pissed about his being back, his record, and breaking the door. IMO, it seemed to me that Nicole was angry about broken property. Why her voiced turned to fear, I don't know. She never said that Simpson had threatened her or even approached her. I don't think Simpson even knew she called the police until much later. I know what she said about him going to "beat the s---t out of her" but she never explained why she thought he was going to hit her.

Yes, Simpson did see Nicole in a romantic act with another man. What did he do, he rang the door bell and walked away. He didn't even stay there long enough to know that they did not hear it. Sorry, if Simpson was a jealous man or a stalker, he would have ruined that little Kodac moment in a heartbeat, IMO.

Simpson and Nicole wrote each other letters. Both accepting their fair share of the blame for certain incidents in their marriage. None of us were privy to all their private conversations. Neither one claimed to be perfect. IMO.

If oj was concerned about what Nicole did the living room scene with Keith Z
would have been the time to take some action.He walked away.HE was finished but she kept comming back.

[GreenIce]

* Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ron Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. Hoestler said Nicole and her friends were "over their heads with some dope dealers".

* Al Cowlings once served as a bodyguard for convicted drug smuggler Joey Ippolito. Ippolito escaped from a Florida jail three weeks before the murders and made many calls to Simpson. According to the theory, Ippolito probably hired a hitman to commit the drug related murders. Frankie Viserto is one hitman known to be close to Ippolito. In the past, Viserto has tortured and beheaded his victims with a knife.
* Nicole's sister Denise Brown was often seen and photographed with ex-Mob enforcer and FBI informant Tony Fiato, a recruit of Ippolito. Denise denied that Fiato was her boyfriend.

Ippolito had some ownership in Mazzaluna resturant.

Martin,

Your post supports some of my statements on this issue. You do not have to be user to be involved or believed to be involved in drugs. IMO, I think it is very possible that Faye was so desperate, she used Nicole has her source for money and perhaps told her dealers that is why she was "good for it".

It is also possible that some one from Ron's life could have assumed because Nicole was the ex-wife of Simpson, she had plenty of money--if Ron couldn't pay his debts, the rich lady would.

[martin II]

The NY Daily News published photos of Demise Brown in a Boston Hotel room
with mobster Tony Fiato.Fiato testified that Vanhatter told him sure oj was a suspect.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

Not sure which "drivel" you are talking about. Faye was living with Nicole a few days prior to the murder. She had slipped back into her addiction and she was living with Nicole. It was in Faye's book where she said she pleaded with Nicole to go away with her and they were in danger. Nicole blew her off. Faye's story is that she was afraid of Simpson but that doesn't make sense, she had nothing to fear from him. How does any of this, if true, have anything to do with whether or not OJ Simpson killed Nicole and Ron? Faye was afraid of OJS because he had told her on the phone he would kill Nicole if he caught her with another man.

Nicole thought Faye was paranoid and a "drama queen"--however, her death, IMO proves that Faye was not being paranoid because of her drug abuse nor does it appear that she was being a drama queen on this issue.What issue?

I agree with that Simpson had every reason to lie, he knew what people wanted to hear from and he refused to say it. IMO, his story never changed and even when given the opportunity to change it, he did not do so. I don't give his story that he didn't argue with Nicole on the phone that night any credence at all. I believe he did have words with her and that is one of the reasons he went over there. IMO

It was triade that I was one--it was just from personal experience. I have a family member who has the same type of condition that Simpson has and I know the crippling pain that comes with it. I know some of the treatments are also very painful and can create horrific nausea and the only thing that helps is pot. I find it very plausable that Simpson was not smoking pot for recreation, but rather for a medical reason. Did he also snort cocaine for his arthritis? He stated the only thing he took for his arthritis was Motrin and that's not likely to cause the kind of nausea you're talking about.

It appears to me that G's are making the most outrageous comments about Simpson smoking pot vs the hard core drugs that were involved. What outrageous comments? The fact is that he had marijuana in his system the day after the murders. I will agree that he was well known to use hard drugs.

I have also posted that neither Ron or Nicole had to be users of the drugs to be involved with them. I have also posted that Ron may have been mistaken for carrying drugs on that night. The Mezzaluna was rumored to be a hot spot for scoring drugs. Nicole's could have been associated with drugs because of who her friends were. I believe who Simpson's friends were in relation to the Mezzaluna is more important. Al Cowlings used to be the chaffeur for the owner. I'm sure the driver would know where all his drug buys and sales were located.

I was thinking about Kris Jenner trashing Nicole. IIRC, Kris Jenner said that Nicole told her that OJS was going to kill her and get away with it. What did Kris Jenner say about Nicole that was negative?

[martin II]

Martin,

Your post supports some of my statements on this issue. You do not have to be user to be involved or believed to be involved in drugs. IMO, I think it is very possible that Faye was so desperate, she used Nicole has her source for money and perhaps told her dealers that is why she was "good for it".

It is also possible that some one from Ron's life could have assumed because Nicole was the ex-wife of Simpson, she had plenty of money--if Ron couldn't pay his debts, the rich lady would.

When fay could not pay her bills she ran to the protection of the rehab.Drug dealers looking for their money would have gone to her last known address Nicoles house.Or thought that Nicole had been using their drugs with faye and this could have been the people that had Nicole crying on the phone if she did cry.Nicole did tell Cora that she did not like the people that came to her house to see faye.imo

[tv]

Martin,

Your post supports some of my statements on this issue. You do not have to be user to be involved or believed to be involved in drugs. IMO, I think it is very possible that Faye was so desperate, she used Nicole has her source for money and perhaps told her dealers that is why she was "good for it".

It is also possible that some one from Ron's life could have assumed because Nicole was the ex-wife of Simpson, she had plenty of money--if Ron couldn't pay his debts, the rich lady would.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that Ron owed anyone any money related to drugs?

[fgump2]

I think it shows a bit of control that he hit HIS car and not nicole.
If that's your idea of self control - you have some growing up to do.

[tv]

If oj was concerned about what Nicole did the living room scene with Keith Z
would have been the time to take some action.He walked away.HE was finished but she kept comming back.

That's because OJS can't confront another man -- he's better at smacking women around that can't possibly defend themselves against him. The only reason he engaged in a struggle with Ron is because he had to either kill him or leave a witness. If he was so finished with her why was he sneaking around looking in her windows? Creepy.

[martin II]

I was thinking about Kris Jenner trashing Nicole. IIRC, Kris Jenner said that Nicole told her that OJS was going to kill her and get away with it. What did Kris Jenner say about Nicole that was negative?

tv

oj caught her with Keith Z and did nothing so that claim was false.

[tv]

When fay could not pay her bills she ran to the protection of the rehab.Drug dealers looking for their money would have gone to her last known address Nicoles house.Or thought that Nicole had been using their drugs with faye and this could have been the people that had Nicole crying on the phone if she did cry.Nicole did tell Cora that she did not like the people that came to her house to see faye.imo

When the drug dealers realized they'd killed the wrong woman why didn't they then go after Faye and kill her? Why didn't they take anything from Nicole's house in payment?

[tv]

tv

oj caught her with Keith Z and did nothing so that claim was false.

No, he ended up killing her.

[GreenIce]

Why Doesn't Dr. Cotton count as an expert? She had a PHD in biochemistry, and hes worked in a well reguarded lab for years. If she wasn't an expert then who is? I think you ignore experts for reasons that are trivial.
I think you wanted to ignore Spitz's testimony in the civil trial because he refrused to testify in the criminal trial. I don't buy that.

Do you think Dr. COtton slanted her testimony as much as Baden or Heny Lee? Not even close. I saw no evidence that Dr. Cotton slanted her testimony.
Do you disreguard the testimony of Baden or Henry Lee as being slanted? I think you are cherry picking testimony according to how it fits with making Simpson innocent.


Also as for Orenthal trashing Nicole, I am pretty sure he repeatidly said she associated with Heidi Fleiss women (prostitutes). Considering Orenthals promiscuous affairs that is a strange He also made remarks about her using drugs too much but couldn't back it up with very many specifics. I don't have links to the Heidi Fleiss remarks, but could probably find them.

fgump2,

Dr. Cotton gave an opinon about where the blood did not come from--it was an opinion only. She could not say how or when the blood got on the socks.
She could not explain why 4 or 5 state experts, one being the head of the lab, did not see blood on the socks or why they did not use the proper the equipment.

Because of the "mistakes" in this case as well as what a few authors have written, the socks could have been tested for blood very early on but none was found. However, like the missing initials, the lost bloody fingerprints, the results of these tests could have been "lost", only be "refound" a couple of months later.

You can not deny that the most damning blood evidence against Simpson was found weeks and months later. There is no logical explaination for this, IMO.

Dr. Sims testified on this issue in the criminal trial. Don't you find it odd that he did not testify to this in the criminal trial or that Dr. Cotton didn't testify about this in the criminal trial?

Dr. Cotton was called to the stand to testify about who's DNA it was. Not how and when the DNA got there.

I did not find Dr. Lee's or Dr. Baden's testimony slanted. Neither man was an advocate. They gave their opinons and they explained their opinons. Too many of the state witnesses had no explainations for the evidence, IMO.

I have read many posts about the defense's "hired guns". However, no one accuses the DA's or the plaintiffs for their "hired guns".

I know several times you have posted about Dr. Lee's book versus what Shapiro said in regards to the number of hairs needed. However, unless you read Dr. Lee's book, then you don't know the whole context of his beliefs on this issue. Was he talking about three hairs that DNA can be gotten from?

I just thought about this, why did the DA's need so many hairs? What did they do with all of them? Were some destroyed in testing?

If 100 hairs were taken from Simpson, then how many were taken from Nicole and Ron? Wouldn't the DA's also need about a 100 of their hair as well?

[tv]

In Robert Shapiro's book, he talks about some of the things they learned about Nicole and that it was very compelling. However, he said that because of the length of the case, they only put on 40 percent of their case and that Simpson did not want Nicole trashed. Her sister, Denise, well that was a different matter. Shapiro said because they did not need to reveal this evidence in the trial, he was not going to reveal it in his book.

Pat McKenna also found some interesting things, concerning drugs, but it had nothing to do with Faye Resnick.

What I find interesting is that Simpson knew about Faye's drug issues and that she was forced into rehab, yet he never tries to steer the detectives in that direction, in fact, I think he said he did not believe this person had anything to do with the murders. IMO, had Simpson been the killer, he would have steered them in this direction, again, IMO.Are you kidding? OJ Simpson was always talking about the murderer being in the 'world of Faye Resnick'. She wasn't 'forced' into rehab. Her friends held an intervention for her own good and she agreed to go.

[martin II]

That's because OJS can't confront another man -- he's better at smacking women around that can't possibly defend themselves against him. The only reason he engaged in a struggle with Ron is because he had to either kill him or leave a witness. If he was so finished with her why was he sneaking around looking in her windows? Creepy.

He wasn't sneaking he came to see her and saw her doing what she was doing in plain sight with the kids in the house.You think that was good judgement?

[martin II]

Are you kidding? OJ Simpson was always talking about the murderer being in the 'world of Faye Resnick'. She wasn't 'forced' into rehab. Her friends held an intervention for her own good and she agreed to go.

She tried to put it off. She didn't go until her ex forced her which played into her hand.She even told Nicole that she should go to rehab with her.Or she would go if Nicole went with her.Look Faye is at nicoles house running up a drug bill.The dealers know where she lives, she had no more money and Nicole refuses to give her more and suggest rehab to get faye out of her house and keep THOSE PEOPLE from comming there.Two - three days before Nicole is killed ,Fays runs to the safety of rehab.imo

[tv]

He wasn't sneaking he came to see her and saw her doing what she was doing in plain sight with the kids in the house.You think that was good judgement? So he just happened to come by unexpectedly? He had no reason to be there if the kids had already gone to bed. He was spying on her. The neighbors had seen him watching her before. Very creepy.

[tv]

She tried to put it off. She didn't go until her ex forced her which played into her hand.She even told Nicole that she should go to rehab with her.Or she would go if Nicole went with her.imo

How did he force her?

[GreenIce]

Are you kidding? OJ Simpson was always talking about the murderer being in the 'world of Faye Resnick'. She wasn't 'forced' into rehab. Her friends held an intervention for her own good and she agreed to go.

TV,

Simpson only became suspious of Faye because of the lies she started telling. In American Tragedy, both Kris Jenner and Candace Garvey did believe Faye was "probably lying". I think Candace felt that the dates were a real issue but did not give any other reason why Faye was lying. Kris Jenner does not give any examples either.

I do believe intervention is forcing a person into rehab. I believe an intervention forces that person to deal with the facts of the person's addiction and how it is affecting them. Again, that is just how I see it. Faye did not going willing and continued to deny she had a problem. She eventually agreed to go but only if was a lock down center.

You forget about Sydney Simpson about what she heard and heard that night. What she saw and heard while Faye was staying with her mother. Faye made sure she would not be called by either side. Her book pointed the finger away from her and on Simpson. Do you really think who ever killed Ron and Nicole were going to angry that Simpson was being blamed for it? Her book kept her alive and IMO, she did what she had to do.

[GreenIce]

Do you have any proof whatsoever that Ron owed anyone any money related to drugs?

TV,

Do you have any proof that he did not owe anyone money in relations to drugs? Again, it is just the concept of guilt by association.

However, Ron did have big dreams and he even drew up the plans and the menu for his eatery. He had no money saved, he was barely able to keep himself afloat, he had to file bankruptacy---he knew it would take a lot of money to get it going---would he be the first person to believe that he could make a lot of money, a real lot of money in the drug trade and then believe he could leave it any time he wanted?

[GreenIce]

So he just happened to come by unexpectedly? He had no reason to be there if the kids had already gone to bed. He was spying on her. The neighbors had seen him watching her before. Very creepy.

TV,

I think during that time, OJ and Nicole did get together a few times. He explained that he did just drop by, walked up the stairs, looked in the picture window, saw what he saw, rang the door bell and turned around. The reason he rang the door bell was to let them know they could be seen by anyone walking to the front door. OJ's behavior is not that of a jealous man. Sure, it bothered him but not enough to create a scene.

If you remember correctly, Nicole's neighbors explained why they called the police and Nicole explained why he was NOT sneaking around--she asked to do this and I don't think Simpson was the only one she asked. I think she asked Shipp as well. Remember, Nicole was getting obscene phone calls. She was freaked out about them, she asked for Simpson's help, he did what she asked him to do.

[tv]

TV,

Simpson only became suspious of Faye because of the lies she started telling. In American Tragedy, both Kris Jenner and Candace Garvey did believe Faye was "probably lying". I think Candace felt that the dates were a real issue but did not give any other reason why Faye was lying. Kris Jenner does not give any examples either.

I do believe intervention is forcing a person into rehab. I believe an intervention forces that person to deal with the facts of the person's addiction and how it is affecting them. Again, that is just how I see it. Faye did not going willing and continued to deny she had a problem. She eventually agreed to go but only if was a lock down center.

You forget about Sydney Simpson about what she heard and heard that night. What she saw and heard while Faye was staying with her mother. Faye made sure she would not be called by either side. Her book pointed the finger away from her and on Simpson. Do you really think who ever killed Ron and Nicole were going to angry that Simpson was being blamed for it? Her book kept her alive and IMO, she did what she had to do.

It's illegal to force someone into rehab unless it's court ordered. I don't recall Sydney saying that Nicole had a fight on the phone with Faye. She gave a deposition in the civil trial and her testimony as well as Christian Reichardt's is very interesting.

[GreenIce]

When the drug dealers realized they'd killed the wrong woman why didn't they then go after Faye and kill her? Why didn't they take anything from Nicole's house in payment?

TV,

If they went after Faye and killed her while Simpson was in jail for the crime, it would draw a lot attention that they did not want. If Nicole and/or Ron was the intended victim, it was to send a message to Faye.

You also have to remember, there was an ear witness that night, Sydney Simpson. IMO, Simpson refused to have her testify to protect her and I believe the Browns may have felt the same way. Had Sydney testified that she did hear the "hey, hey, hey" and the men's voices and knew that it was not her father's voice, what does that mean? She is an earwitness and she could have exhonrated her father. If that happens, then another investigation takes place.

[tv]

TV,

I think during that time, OJ and Nicole did get together a few times. He explained that he did just drop by, walked up the stairs, looked in the picture window, saw what he saw, rang the door bell and turned around. The reason he rang the door bell was to let them know they could be seen by anyone walking to the front door. OJ's behavior is not that of a jealous man. Sure, it bothered him but not enough to create a scene.

If you remember correctly, Nicole's neighbors explained why they called the police and Nicole explained why he was NOT sneaking around--she asked to do this and I don't think Simpson was the only one she asked. I think she asked Shipp as well. Remember, Nicole was getting obscene phone calls. She was freaked out about them, she asked for Simpson's help, he did what she asked him to do.

I doubt if Nicole had invited him there if she was entertaining a boyfriend so I feel it's likely he was spying on her. I agree that it wasn't the actions of a jealous man but it was the action of a possessive and obsessive man. OJ Simpson has a history of 'dropping by' people's houses. He drove by Gil Garcetti's house for two years after the criminal trial and screamed at him as he drove by. What did he do to help Nicole with the obscene phone calls?

[tv]

TV,

If they went after Faye and killed her while Simpson was in jail for the crime, it would draw a lot attention that they did not want. If Nicole and/or Ron was the intended victim, it was to send a message to Faye.

You also have to remember, there was an ear witness that night, Sydney Simpson. IMO, Simpson refused to have her testify to protect her and I believe the Browns may have felt the same way. Had Sydney testified that she did hear the "hey, hey, hey" and the men's voices and knew that it was not her father's voice, what does that mean? She is an earwitness and she could have exhonrated her father. If that happens, then another investigation takes place.

Did the 'ear witness' say that Nicole was fighting with Faye on the phone? I've never heard or read that Sydney heard the murders being committed.

I'm sorry --I think it's laughable that anyone would kill Faye Resnick over drugs. So, they didn't mind killing Ron and Nicole right next to the street but they laid low when it came to killing Faye while Simpson was in jail?

[tv]

TV,

I think it is about the laws and the taxes and making sure the state and federal governments get their cut. I have no clue why the firearms are linked with the other two.

GreenIce, the government does not classify cigarettes as a drug.

[tv]

You don't think nicotine is a drug?

Don't start.

[tv]

TV,

Do you have any proof that he did not owe anyone money in relations to drugs? Again, it is just the concept of guilt by association.

However, Ron did have big dreams and he even drew up the plans and the menu for his eatery. He had no money saved, he was barely able to keep himself afloat, he had to file bankruptacy---he knew it would take a lot of money to get it going---would he be the first person to believe that he could make a lot of money, a real lot of money in the drug trade and then believe he could leave it any time he wanted?

I don't have to provide proof for just any old allegation you throw out there. Do you have proof that OJS didn't owe drug money to anyone? Or AC? Or OJ's maid? There is as much evidence that they owed drug money as there is that Ron owed drug money.

Lots of young people struggle with money, declare bankruptcy and are barely able to keep themselves afloat. That doesn't mean they're drug dealers. This is all rank speculation on your part.

[martin II]

It's illegal to force someone into rehab unless it's court ordered. I don't recall Sydney saying that Nicole had a fight on the phone with Faye. She gave a deposition in the civil trial and her testimony as well as Christian Reichardt's is very interesting.

When it was time for her to go she asked for a few more days and CR said no you got to go now. so he forced her to go.i was saying it is possible that it was the dealers that may have been the person that upset nicole on the phone but it could have been faye.fays deposition was a diaster.That is when she tried to say she did not know freebasing involved cocain and that she was only spending $20.00 a day. what nonsense.imo .faye was a cancer for nicole.but i believe nicole was pleased to get her out of her house.

[tv]

When it was time for her to go she asked for a few more days and CR said no you got to go now. so he forced her to go.i was saying it is possible that it was the dealers that may have been the person that upset nicole on the phone but it could have been faye.fays deposition was a diaster.That is when she tried to say she did not know freebasing involved cocain and that she was only spending $20.00 a day. what nonsense.imo .faye was a cancer for nicole.but i believe nicole was pleased to get her out of her house.

He may have urged her to go but he did not force her. It's illegal to force an adult to do that kind of thing. It's called kidnapping and the rehab center would have never admitted her against her will. According to Reichardt's civil trial deposition she agreed to go and then changed her mind the next morning. He called Nicole and a few other friends that had been at the intervention and they talked her into it. I think he was the one that was glad to get rid of her.

[GreenIce]

I doubt if Nicole had invited him there if she was entertaining a boyfriend so I feel it's likely he was spying on her. I agree that it wasn't the actions of a jealous man but it was the action of a possessive and obsessive man. OJ Simpson has a history of 'dropping by' people's houses. He drove by Gil Garcetti's house for two years after the criminal trial and screamed at him as he drove by. What did he do to help Nicole with the obscene phone calls?

TV,

I did say that Simpson did just drop by, she was not expecting him however, it does not seem out of the norm for him to drop by or for her drop by Rockingham. IMO, just because you divorced someone, does not mean you hate them or wish the them ill. I think Nicole was a place in her life where she wanted more space and time to find herself. Except for the last few months of her life, I don't think Nicole was that different from a lot of women who have been with their husband for many years, who met them while still a teenager and the husband was signficantly older. IMO, in many ways, Nicole was having her "run and gun days" in her 30's while many women have these days in their 20's.

I have never heard that Simpson drove by Gil Garcetti's house and screamed at him. Do you the source of this information?

I do remember the first Mrs. Simpson giving an interview where Nicole would drive by and shout things at her to basically give her husband to her. Perhaps these "Drive By Scream Attacks" is another flaw that both OJ and Nicole shared?

[GreenIce]

He may have urged her to go but he did not force her. It's illegal to force an adult to do that kind of thing. It's called kidnapping and the rehab center would have never admitted her against her will. According to Reichardt's civil trial deposition she agreed to go and then changed her mind the next morning. He called Nicole and a few other friends that had been at the intervention and they talked her into it. I think he was the one that was glad to get rid of her.

TV,

It is clear that Faye was resisting all the way. She kept on insisting that she did not have a problem. He ex-husband used her daughter to force her into rehab. Don't forget, Faye over dosed and her very young daughter was alone sitting with her mother when she was found.

Do I think Faye's drug problem made her bad mother, no I do not but I do believe that the daughter was fair game for her ex and her friends to use her to get Faye into treatment.

Charlie Sheen was in the same place and when Charlie left the facility, his father called the cops on him and was forced back into the facility. Perhaps there was also some legal issues Faye may have been or would be facing if she did not go into rehab.

The only thing we know is that Faye, in her mind, did not go back into rehab because she felt her drug problem was out control again, she went because she was forced into it. Faye had to down play her addiction because of her description of the phone calls between herself and Nicole that day.

Faye says she and Nicole played telephone tag all that day until they finally spoke after 9, I would to know what was said on those messages. I would love to know what Faye and Nicole were fighting about and I would love to know who made Nicole cry. We do know Sydney says that it was Faye who made her mother cry and we do know that Faye agrees that it was her on the phone with Nicole but Nicole was giggling, she was not crying.

Sydney knew the difference between her mother crying and her mother giggling, IMO.

I do believe that it is unfair to say that CR was glad to be rid of Faye. I think it is very difficult for anyone to love an addict and watch them destroy themselves and there be very little you can do about it. The lies and the desperate lengths an addict will go to to hide or continue their habit is heartbreaking. I think it is obvious CR loved Faye enough to force an intervention for her to get the help she needed, not to get rid of her. I think it was a couple of months after the murders that they broke up for good.

[GreenIce]

I don't have to provide proof for just any old allegation you throw out there. Do you have proof that OJS didn't owe drug money to anyone? Or AC? Or OJ's maid? There is as much evidence that they owed drug money as there is that Ron owed drug money.

Lots of young people struggle with money, declare bankruptcy and are barely able to keep themselves afloat. That doesn't mean they're drug dealers. This is all rank speculation on your part.

TV,

How many people do you think become drug dealers because they are seduced by the "big and easy" money? How many of these same people truly believe they can walk away from it any time? How many of these same people ever believe they will be caught? The point is that it should not be surprising to anyone if Ron and/or Nicole were headed in that direction.

Ron's money problems extended into his relationships with his father and sister. I seriously doubt that Ron would have gone to them for help with money. I think Ron wanted to prove to his family that he made mistakes but he was able to make it on his own two feet. Didn't Kim talk about the fight they had right before the murders about money? Him callling her for help?

Wasn't it three former waiters from the Mezzaluna and friends of Ron who were murdered? That their murders are still unsolved to this day?

Again, I would like to point out, Ron very well could have had nothing to do with the drugs, however, his friendships and where he worked may have led other people to believe that he was involved with them.

Just like Nicole. Guilt by association can be more deadly then most people realize. IMO.

[GreenIce]

When it was time for her to go she asked for a few more days and CR said no you got to go now. so he forced her to go.i was saying it is possible that it was the dealers that may have been the person that upset nicole on the phone but it could have been faye.fays deposition was a diaster.That is when she tried to say she did not know freebasing involved cocain and that she was only spending $20.00 a day. what nonsense.imo .faye was a cancer for nicole.but i believe nicole was pleased to get her out of her house.

Martin,

I agree with you about Faye and the negative impact she had on Nicole's life. In fact, I can't see one thing that Faye ever did for Nicole that was done out of kindess and friendship. Faye was high maintenance and Nicole was naive enough to be literally seduced by Faye.

I think Dr. Ameli is the key about Nicole's crying. We have been led to believe that Nicole was fighting and crying in one phone call, however, that has never been proved. According to a few books, Sydney says that she actually heard mommy's best friend's "voice", does that mean Sydney knew that Faye was actually at Nicole's that night? Or did she hear the voice over the phone?

Everybody had Nicole in a positive mood that night, no fears no tears, except for Dr. Ameli and Sydney.

[martin II]

Did the 'ear witness' say that Nicole was fighting with Faye on the phone? I've never heard or read that Sydney heard the murders being committed.

I'm sorry --I think it's laughable that anyone would kill Faye Resnick over drugs. So, they didn't mind killing Ron and Nicole right next to the street but they laid low when it came to killing Faye while Simpson was in jail?

with one person in jail why risk trying something to bring attention.