Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

Either scenario contradicts your statement that he was a little school girl when it came to confronting a man man on man, IMHO.

In this instance he had no choice. It's my opinion that if he'd known he'd run into Ron Goldman he would have picked another time to kill Nicole. It was either kill Ron Goldman or go to jail for the rest of his life or worse.

[martin II]

Martin that's not true. His letter said "I can no longer ..." What do you think that means? By saying I can "NO LONGER" means that he was ALREADY aware that she was doing it and he hadn't said anything about it before. If he was so against it why didn't he just tell her right off the bat that she couldn't do it?

Since you posted four words you say came from the letter,Can you post the complete letter?

[GreenIce]

Nope. :)

Just checking:)

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9197998]

Simpson didn't watch the kids that much. OJ Simpson was pretty much an absent father.

How can you say that Nicole wasn't afraid of Simpson killing her? She told that to Faye and Kato among others. She told that to the police when they responded to a 911 call. I find the testimony of the woman from the women's shelter to be very interesting and I believe she spoke to Nicole on June 7 and that Nicole told her she was very frightened. Nicole also told the police that when Simpson got that animalistic look she was very frightened. These are just a few examples of Nicole expressing her fear of physical harm form Simpson.

TV,

Simpson made his living being on the road and being OJ Simpson. While I am sure it was very frustrating to Nicole to be left with the kids much of the time, I don't remember her ever being quoted that she resented his work related business trips or the fact that in August he moved to NY until after the Superbowl--that is several months. That is how he made his living and this is how he paid his child support.

I do not believe that was Nicole that called the shelter or it may have been someone speaking for Nicole. I have heard different accounts of this, in one book the woman said she gave her last name, in Clark's book she said that 8 police officers responded to this call--must be because she gave her last name and another book has her naming OJ Simpson.

That evidence never should have been allowed into the trial because there was no way this woman could have identified Nicole by her voice on the phone. There is too much evidence that Nicole was pissed off OJ and none that she was afraid of him at that time.

Yes, I remember Nicole saying that about Simpson, it is the very same tape where she says he only ever hit her once. She didn't know she was being recorded.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9198007]

TV,

Simpson made his living being on the road and being OJ Simpson. While I am sure it was very frustrating to Nicole to be left with the kids much of the time, I don't remember her ever being quoted that she resented his work related business trips or the fact that in August he moved to NY until after the Superbowl--that is several months. That is how he made his living and this is how he paid his child support. It doesn't matter why he was absent and I don't believe I was critical of his lifestyle. With Simpson, it is what it is.


I do not believe that was Nicole that called the shelter or it may have been someone speaking for Nicole. I have heard different accounts of this, in one book the woman said she gave her last name, in Clark's book she said that 8 police officers responded to this call--must be because she gave her last name and another book has her naming OJ Simpson. Nancy Ney, the person who took the call, testified in the civil trial that the caller didn't giver her last name and didn't give the name of her ex-husband. I'll go by the actual testimony.

That evidence never should have been allowed into the trial because there was no way this woman could have identified Nicole by her voice on the phone. There is too much evidence that Nicole was pissed off OJ and none that she was afraid of him at that time. She said the voice sounded the same but that's not why I believe it was Nicole. She told Ms. Ney specifics that match with Nicole's situation.

Yes, I remember Nicole saying that about Simpson, it is the very same tape where she says he only ever hit her once. She didn't know she was being recorded.

She cited several different incidences in her diary about Simpson hitting her and repeated some stories to different friends. In addition, there were people that witnessed his abuse on several occasions. It's a classic symptom of a battered woman to cover for her abuser and minimize his behavior.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9197976]If we are going to consider the fact that Nicolconsider that they might have been caused by her fear of Orenthal.

fgump2,

Nicole's fear of OJ has always been associated with him doing physical harm to her.

However, isn't also fair to consider that Nicole was afraid of OJ not being her life? That she has been with him almost 20 years and now she wants to make it on her own but at times got frightened but the very goal she was trying to achieve?

Didn't Nicole make a down payment on a home a fair distance away from Simpson? This distance would make it much more difficult for Nicole to just drop the kids off and have Simpson or Arnelle watch the kids. There are several reasons why Nicole may have been afraid of Simpson, but that does mean she was physically afraid of him.

Wasn't Nicole trying to get a larger settlement because she had not real work experience? For Nicole to enter the working force at 35 or 36 having never had to really support herself, let alone two young children is very daunting. Yeah, I can see where Nicole was afraid--but not of Simpson killing her, IMO.

Faye expresses that Nicole had a "real" fear about Simpson, that was that a white man could not satisfy her as Simpson had and the only one who came close was Marcus Allen. However, there is a problem with Faye's story on this, all of Nicole's boyfriends since parting with Simpson were white.

Nicole did try to get a larger settlememt and she asked oj to give her the Rockingham house.

[tv]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9197998]

Nicole did try to get a larger settlememt and she asked oj to give her the Rockingham house.

She should have gotten more money and the house. He admitted he cheated on her the entire time they were married and should have been compensated.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9198210]

She cited several different incidences in her diary about Simpson hitting her and repeated some stories to different friends. In addition, there were people that witnessed his abuse on several occasions. It's a classic symptom of a battered woman to cover for her abuser and minimize his behavior.

Can you name the friends and did any of them testify when the prosecution talked about abuse??

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9198214]

She should have gotten more money and the house. He admitted he cheated on her the entire time they were married and should have been compensated.

She got a great settlement.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9198210]

She cited several different incidences in her diary about Simpson hitting her and repeated some stories to different friends. In addition, there were people that witnessed his abuse on several occasions. It's a classic symptom of a battered woman to cover for her abuser and minimize his behavior.

She said, out of her own mouth that he only hit her once so your source must be wrong.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9198212]

Can you name the friends and did any of them testify when the prosecution talked about abuse??

Right off the top of my head -- India Allen and Albert Aguilera testifed in the civil trial and others testified that Nicole told them Simpson was hitting her.

[serpentsfall]

It's not over til it's over.

And the murder case is SO over.

[serpentsfall]

i have not jumped on anyone about their opinions.just i am not jumping on you for your opinion posted above.It is my opinion that most people hire lawyers to give advice on issues they may be considering in advance. not after the fact.

I have not seen any comments by oj that he was concerned with her taxes. I think it was Nicole that explained her potential tax problem to him.
OJS lawyer advised him not to give approval for Nicole to use his address and wrote the letter informing her of the decision. i think it was good legal advice
as oj did not seem to have the desire to be involved in what she was trying to do in any way.imo:cool:

You post as if you think Nicole was some dimwit who was unable or unwilling to function without OJ Simpson. OJ was neither a CPA nor an attorney. She probably did discuss her finances and other issues with OJ while they were attempting reconciliation. Discussing issues with someone isn't the same as "running to him" for answers to those issues.

l can't seem to find a copy of the IRS letter, but IIRC he not only put her on notice not to use Rockingham as her address but also threatened to turn her in to the IRS. The point you seem to choose to ignore is that the letter did not originate due to OJ's attorney addressing some issue in the course of OJ Simpson business; it seems is was instigated by OJ. While he may or may not have been legally "right" about Nicole's possible IRS problems, I agree with the prosecution that the timing and tone of the letter indicated malicious intent towards Nicole by OJ. I find it poetic justice that OJ lost Rockingham!

I did find the following discussion of the tax issues
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/oct95.html

[weezer]

You post as if you think Nicole was some dimwit who was unable or unwilling to function without OJ Simpson. OJ was neither a CPA nor an attorney. She probably did discuss her finances and other issues with OJ while they were attempting reconciliation. Discussing issues with someone isn't the same as "running to him" for answers to those issues.

l can't seem to find a copy of the IRS letter, but IIRC he not only put her on notice not to use Rockingham as her address but also threatened to turn her in to the IRS. The point you seem to choose to ignore is that the letter did not originate due to OJ's attorney addressing some issue in the course of OJ Simpson business; it seems is was instigated by OJ. While he may or may not have been legally "right" about Nicole's possible IRS problems, I agree with the prosecution that the timing and tone of the letter indicated malicious intent towards Nicole by OJ. I find it poetic justice that OJ lost Rockingham!

I did find the following discussion of the tax issues
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/oct95.html

I've always believed orenthal thought he had a hold on Nicole with the IRS stuff -- he just over played his hand. :eek:

[martin II]

You post as if you think Nicole was some dimwit who was unable or unwilling to function without OJ Simpson. OJ was neither a CPA nor an attorney. She probably did discuss her finances and other issues with OJ while they were attempting reconciliation. Discussing issues with someone isn't the same as "running to him" for answers to those issues.

l can't seem to find a copy of the IRS letter, but IIRC he not only put her on notice not to use Rockingham as her address but also threatened to turn her in to the IRS. The point you seem to choose to ignore is that the letter did not originate due to OJ's attorney addressing some issue in the course of OJ Simpson business; it seems is was instigated by OJ. While he may or may not have been legally "right" about Nicole's possible IRS problems, I agree with the prosecution that the timing and tone of the letter indicated malicious intent towards Nicole by OJ. I find it poetic justice that OJ lost Rockingham!

I did find the following discussion of the tax issues
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/oct95.html


How you understand my post is not a issue for me.

i posted that she ran to oj when she realized she had a problem if she sold her condo as she planned and made a request of him as a solution. i never said she asked him for advice other than on this issue.So your claim of what i said is not correct.Also i never said she was a dimwit so i have no idea as to where you got that from.
Nicole asked oj for permission so the refusal had to originate with him. His lawyer put his response in legal terms which is what lawyers do.

Who dumped who first is not a concern to me because during the period before she was killed Nicole was seeing others and oj was seeing Paula.So both had gone their seperate ways.

What i get from the letter is nicole needed his help on the potential tax issue
At leat that it what she told her friends. It was Nicole that decided she had a tax issue if she sold her condo not oj.

He refused to be involved.That was his right regardless of what some think they know his reason.

i will ask this again. If Nicole did not want anything to do with oj and wanted so much to be independant of him, why didm't she just use her parents address.

[GreenIce]

Simpson looked in her windows by his own admission. You are going way out on a limb to start talking about Simpson organizing a hit from jail or anywhere else. Friends do not support what Simpson said about Nicole's drug use. Some of them said that she used drugs once in a while but most of them said they'd never seen her use drugs. The evidence is that Simpson was a much heavier drug user than Nicole. He had illegal drugs in his system the day after the murders -- Nicole did not. Nicole was acting differently because she was finally freeing herself of the man who had controlled her life for 17 years.

Saying that Nicole was involved with drugs but didn't know it makes no sense. I thought you were of the opinion that she and Ron were planning on opening a restaurant with their proceeds from selling cocaine?

TV,

Simpson explained what happened, he walked up to Nicole's front door and he glanced at the window, saw what he saw, rang the doorbell and left. If Simpson wanted his presence felt, he could have ruined that little Kodac heartbeat. He also explained his feelings the next day to Nicole and Keith and shook Keith's hand. These are the acts of a jealous man, IMO. I don't consider myself to be a jealous person but if I saw my ex in the same situation, I would have been just like that annoying guy on the cell phone commericals. Instead of saying "Can You Hear Me Now", I would be doing this and saying "Do you see me now?". I never would have left without at least interrupting them. And never in a million years would go the next day and shake the woman's hand.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The guy who stole Paula's SUV and said he was following Nicole said that he did not want to talk because he was afraid for his life, even in jail. Why would he be afraid of Simpson if he was also behind bars? He did say that it was Robert Kardashian who hired him but that makes no sense because he isn't afraid to name the man who was not in jail.

Never, ever did I say that Nicole's friends agreed with Simpson alleged comments about Nicole's drug use. It was her extreme behavior that caused the concern. Simspon never said it was drugs, he thought it may have been but he did not know for sure. Again, any person who suddenly displays extreme behaviors, questions are going to be asked what could have caused this behavior.

Nicole's friends had seen Nicole separated and divorced from Simpson. They knew her and knew her habits, her behavior was very extreme for the Nicole they knew.

Do you know what drugs they were testing for on Ron and Nicole?

Never ever did I say that Ron and Nicole were planning to open a restaurant on drug money. I never said that Ron and Nicole were dealing drugs. I have been perfectly clear on this. I know the "sales pitch" that is used to "recruit".
Big money, short time, won't get caught--tempting. Never did I say that either one was tempted enough to do it.

Faye's comments about her drug use and the amount of money she was spending on her habit has not been proved. The only way to prove that she was telling the truth was to talk to her drug dealer. Since this was not done, we don't know the truth. However, the name she gave does not mean that she did not do business with other drug dealers.

My point about Nicole not knowing about being involved is that we don't know what Faye told her connections about paying off her drug debts. As you know, drug addiction and fear can make a person say anything to get their drugs. Faye was living in Nicole's house, Faye was freebasing in Nicole's house, perhaps Faye told her connection that Nicole was also freebasing cocaine so the debt was not Faye's but Nicole's.

We know that Nicole was fight with Faye that night--what about? We know Nicole was crying on the phone, but we don't know why.

Again, IMO, guilt by association may have played a role in this, not only for Nicole but also Ron.

[martin II]

I have always thought that Nicole played oj with the back and forth after the divorce. I think she felt she could always get him back. His refusal on the address issue was the first clear message to her that those days were over.imo

[GreenIce]

He stabbed Ron Goldman to death -- I have no doubt of that. He would never have considered confronting Ron if he'd known he would be there. It's my firm belief that Ron came upon Simpson attacking Nicole or tried to help Nicole while Simpson hid in the shadows and then attacked him from behind. I lean toward the second scenario.

TV,

You are going to hate this post---thank you for proving a point that I have been trying to make for years!:)

Simpson never would have committed the murders that night because he did know that not only was Nicole expecting someone, he also knew his daughter was having a sleepover that night!

Simpson knew what Nicole did when she was expecting a guest in regards to letting them into the condo. He knew her habits, he knew where she would leave the garage door opener.

He also knew, according to Kato, that it was assumed by both him and Kato that Nicole was going out that night. Why go to Bundy to killer when he knew she might not even be home or if she was home, she was expecting some body?

It would have been impossible for Ron Goldman to have tried to "rescue" Nicole that night--Ron had Nicole's lipstick on his face--which means that, IMO, that they were attacked after Nicole and Ron greeted each other.

The "hey, hey, hey" means nothing because of the lipstick and it can't be proved who said "hey, hey, hey". However, if what was written in Killing Time, then Sydney heard the "hey, hey, hey" as well as the two men arguing.

If she knew mommy's bestfriend voice, then she would have recognized her father's voice, IMO.

You sentence about Ron helping Nicole and then he was attacked makes no sense. What would Ron be helping her with? And there is no evidence anyone hid in the bushes. It least I don't think was.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9198217]

Right off the top of my head -- India Allen and Albert Aguilera testifed in the civil trial and others testified that Nicole told them Simpson was hitting her.

hhhmmm
Why none in the criminal trial when the prosecution argued abuse.Only two in the civil trial.From your post i assumed there were many.

[serpentsfall]

How you understand my post is not a issue for me.

i posted that she ran to oj when she realized she had a problem if she sold her condo as she planned and made a request of him as a solution. i never said she asked him for advice other than on this issue.So your claim of what i said is not correct.Also i never said she was a dimwit so i have no idea as to where you got that from.
Nicole asked oj for permission so the refusal had to originate with him. His lawyer put his response in legal terms which is what lawyers do.

Who dumped who first is not a concern to me because during the period before she was killed Nicole was seeing others and oj was seeing Paula.So both had gone their seperate ways.

What i get from the letter is nicole needed his help on the potential tax issue
At leat that it what she told her friends. It was Nicole that decided she had a tax issue if she sold her condo not oj.

He refused to be involved.That was his right regardless of what some think they know his reason.

i will ask this again. If Nicole did not want anything to do with oj and wanted so much to be independant of him, why didm't she just use her parents address.

Unless you knew them personally, you don't know what, if anything, she "ran to" OJ about. She had already sold a property - in San Francisco. She needed to buy another rental property to avoid tax; she bought Bundy and lived in it for 6 months. She was in the process of buying another property. OJ said in his depo he had agreed at the time she bought Bundy (in January) to allow her to use Rockingham as her residence with the IRS. He only refused to be "involved" after she dumped him.

She didn't live long enough after their breakup (which I believe was after April 15th) to change addresses - to either her parents or the new place she was buying - with the IRS.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9198217]

Right off the top of my head -- India Allen and Albert Aguilera testifed in the civil trial and others testified that Nicole told them Simpson was hitting her.

TV,

The DA's gave the judge a list of what they said was evidence that Simpson hit Nicole or abused Nicole. The judge ruled that certain allegations could be used but the majority of them could not be.

I believe that the DA's did know about Allen and Aguilera and either chose not to use them or the judge did not allow them to testify in the trial.

However, if the DA's did not know about these two and they only came forward after the criminal trial the their testimony must be questioned--why only after the criminal trial did they come forward?

Nicole, in her own voice said that only happened once, she told AC that it only happed once. I am sure that after the 1989 incidents, Nicole's true friends would be looking for signs that he was hitting her. There were no signs and Nicole stood to make a huge amount of money if he ever did hurt her again--he went to lawyer to his lawyer to make it legal.

There is evidence that Nicole would not hesitate to call the cops, so if she called the cops before he told her that he would rip up the prenup, she would have called the cops afterwards, IMO.

[GreenIce]

How you understand my post is not a issue for me.

i posted that she ran to oj when she realized she had a problem if she sold her condo as she planned and made a request of him as a solution. i never said she asked him for advice other than on this issue.So your claim of what i said is not correct.Also i never said she was a dimwit so i have no idea as to where you got that from.
Nicole asked oj for permission so the refusal had to originate with him. His lawyer put his response in legal terms which is what lawyers do.

Who dumped who first is not a concern to me because during the period before she was killed Nicole was seeing others and oj was seeing Paula.So both had gone their seperate ways.

What i get from the letter is nicole needed his help on the potential tax issue
At leat that it what she told her friends. It was Nicole that decided she had a tax issue if she sold her condo not oj.

He refused to be involved.That was his right regardless of what some think they know his reason.

i will ask this again. If Nicole did not want anything to do with oj and wanted so much to be independant of him, why didm't she just use her parents address.

Martin,

IMO, many G's have not taken into consideration one very important aspect on this issue. Simpson found love and happiness after his divorce from Nicole. He was already settled in a routine that he loved and his career was getting better and better.

Nicole on the other hand did not find love and happiness after the divorce. IMO, it is obvious that Nicole was trying to find herself, Simpson was not.

[GreenIce]

You post as if you think Nicole was some dimwit who was unable or unwilling to function without OJ Simpson. OJ was neither a CPA nor an attorney. She probably did discuss her finances and other issues with OJ while they were attempting reconciliation. Discussing issues with someone isn't the same as "running to him" for answers to those issues.

l can't seem to find a copy of the IRS letter, but IIRC he not only put her on notice not to use Rockingham as her address but also threatened to turn her in to the IRS. The point you seem to choose to ignore is that the letter did not originate due to OJ's attorney addressing some issue in the course of OJ Simpson business; it seems is was instigated by OJ. While he may or may not have been legally "right" about Nicole's possible IRS problems, I agree with the prosecution that the timing and tone of the letter indicated malicious intent towards Nicole by OJ. I find it poetic justice that OJ lost Rockingham!

I did find the following discussion of the tax issues
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/oct95.html

SF,

It is obvious that both OJ and Nicole knew that if she continued to use his address, they would be in trouble with the IRS. In the letter, Simpson made it clear that he would get in trouble too if she was caught.

IMO, that letter was the best thing that Simpson could have done that the time. Nicole got pissed off but she turned her anger into action. She looked for a new home for far enough away that she could start fresh. Moving away from Simpson was a big deal in establishing herself or standing on her own 2 feet. It also forced her to make decisions that she put off making, like entering the working world.

I agree with you that Nicole discussing these issues or seeking OJ out for advice on certain matters does not mean she was "running to him".

[GreenIce]

I have always thought that Nicole played oj with the back and forth after the divorce. I think she felt she could always get him back. His refusal on the address issue was the first clear message to her that those days were over.imo

Martin,

I don't agree with your post about Nicole played back and forth after the divorce. I don't find Nicole's behavior any different then many women who were in her situation. I can understand Nicole wanting to keep her marriage together however, I can also understand her wanting to be independant and be able to take care of herself and her children.

I believe both OJ and Nicole loved each other very much but they knew that it would never work for them. Too much had happened and they wanted different things out of life.

[serpentsfall]

Martin,

IMO, many G's have not taken into consideration one very important aspect on this issue. Simpson found love and happiness after his divorce from Nicole. He was already settled in a routine that he loved and his career was getting better and better.

Nicole on the other hand did not find love and happiness after the divorce. IMO, it is obvious that Nicole was trying to find herself, Simpson was not.

And many NG's want to have it both ways. Simpson may have found love after Nicole, but you fail to mention that new love (Paula) upset Simpson's apple cart by leaving him a "Dear OJ" message the day Nicole died.

[serpentsfall]

Martin,

I don't agree with your post about Nicole played back and forth after the divorce. I don't find Nicole's behavior any different then many women who were in her situation. I can understand Nicole wanting to keep her marriage together however, I can also understand her wanting to be independant and be able to take care of herself and her children.

I believe both OJ and Nicole loved each other very much but they knew that it would never work for them. Too much had happened and they wanted different things out of life.

To me, that's what makes this whole drama so tragic and so very sad.

[GreenIce]

Here's my problem ... I watched the trial and recall distinctly Cochran taking up tons of time demanding that Ito give the defense some of the blood evidence so that they could do their own testing with their own experts. Why argue so vehemently and waste so much time on something you didn't feel the need to do or produce?

Or maybe they did do the testing ----- and just found out that the prosecution had it right.

The Boys,

Your comment about Cochran taking up tons of time demanding Ito give the defense some of the blood evidence for their own testing. The DA's assumed that the defense was going to file on motion on this and request a Kelly-Fry hearing (I think that is what it is called) and they let DA's believe they were going to do it--however, they were not going to request this hearing, one of the reasons being that, I think, this hearing would challenged the reliabilty of the DNA testing. The defense was not going to argue on who's blood it was, only when and how did it get there. They also had the nurse's testimony about how much blood the nurse drew, they knew that it was not all accounted for.

The only reason why they told the judge they wanted this hearing was get an inventory of all the blood evidence. And as we know, one was conducted on the 29th of June.

It is also rare that a judge will grant the defense parts of the blood evidence. There has to be enough for the state's tests. How much of each sample was destroyed while performing tests. I have no problem with this. The state should make sure they enough test.

However, had the DA's conducted their tests in a timely manner, then perhaps this never would have been an issue. The DA's should have had no problem turning over any "left overs" from their tests--if there was any.

[GreenIce]

And many NG's want to have it both ways. Simpson may have found love after Nicole, but you fail to mention that new love (Paula) upset Simpson's apple cart by leaving him a "Dear OJ" message the day Nicole died.

SF,

Why did Paula leave this "Dear OJ" message? What reasons did she give for breaking up with him? What was Paula's demeanor or tone on the message?
IMO, I think Paula's "Dear OJ" message was nothing more of a temper tantrum because Simpson would not take her Sydney's recital and she wanted to go. She wanted a public demonstration in front of Nicole and her family that was the woman in Simpson's life.

Also, how many answering machines or accounts did Simpson have regarding his messages? Did he have the same service for his phone in Bronco versus his own phone or business phone?

There is no evidence that Simpson loved Paula enough to kill Nicole for her. Nicole was a thorn in Paula's side and Simpson knew.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9198214]

She should have gotten more money and the house. He admitted he cheated on her the entire time they were married and should have been compensated.

TV,

Please don't take this the wrong way--I am not trying to start anything.

But according your post, shouldn't the first Mrs. Simpson gotten the Rockingham estate and more money?

The first Mrs. Simpson was just as hurt as Nicole was when she knew OJ was cheating on her.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=The Boys;9198086]
Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question.

The Boys,

IMO, this is one of the biggest double standards in our country. A man can be a horrible husband in regards to cheating, etc. But that does not make him a bad father.

However, if a woman is horrible wife, she is also a horrible mother.

[serpentsfall]

SF,

Why did Paula leave this "Dear OJ" message? What reasons did she give for breaking up with him? What was Paula's demeanor or tone on the message?
IMO, I think Paula's "Dear OJ" message was nothing more of a temper tantrum because Simpson would not take her Sydney's recital and she wanted to go. She wanted a public demonstration in front of Nicole and her family that was the woman in Simpson's life.

Also, how many answering machines or accounts did Simpson have regarding his messages? Did he have the same service for his phone in Bronco versus his own phone or business phone?

There is no evidence that Simpson loved Paula enough to kill Nicole for her. Nicole was a thorn in Paula's side and Simpson knew.

We'll never know, will we? Even if it was a "temper tantum", it was one more rejection by a woman that OJ was going to have to deal with. And considering how many times he attempted to call Paula that day, he must have wanted to talk to her about it. Although he also managed to hedge his bet by contacting two other women he'd previously dated as I recall.

I don't think OJ killed Nicole "for" Paula. I personally think the "Dear OJ" message was one of many straws that broke the proverbial camel's back that night and pushed a very complicated man over the line.

[fgump2]

SF,

It is obvious that both OJ and Nicole knew that if she continued to use his address, they would be in trouble with the IRS. In the letter, Simpson made it clear that he would get in trouble too if she was caught.

IMO, that letter was the best thing that Simpson could have done that the time. Nicole got pissed off but she turned her anger into action. She looked for a new home for far enough away that she could start fresh. Moving away from Simpson was a big deal in establishing herself or standing on her own 2 feet. It also forced her to make decisions that she put off making, like entering the working world.

I agree with you that Nicole discussing these issues or seeking OJ out for advice on certain matters does not mean she was "running to him".
Orenthal may have done Nicole a favor with the letter, but that wasn't his intention.

According to Petrocelli's book Simpson got Skip Taft to write the IRS letter. Taft was a friend, lawyer, and business advisor to Simpson. Taft wrote that he "made the changes that you requested but didn't get revengenful". This isn't real incriminating, but Nicole's diary about the subject makes Orenthal look worse.

She wrote in her diary that she hung up on him over that topic on June 2. The next day he called her back and said: "you hung up on me last night. You're gonna pay for this, b***h... You're holding money from the IRS. You're going to jail, you f*****g c**t".

I think the IRS situation was more than just a tax problem.

[bobaugust]

You might want to read the article again but so that you will not miss it, if you do, I will post it.

"One Negroid head hair was also found on the Rockingham glove and one Negroid head hair on Ron Goldman’s shirt. One Negroid limb hair and one Causation limb hair was found inside the Rockingham glove."

Again, I am compelled to correct an inaccurate statement you made.

Okay I stand corrected, Garrison wrote that an identified hair was found inside the glove but he is incorrect. In the criminal trial Deedrick testified that a short light brown Caucasian head hair was found on the Rockingham glove not inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You seem to determine what is fact by what fits your conclusion as to what happened. You nor I were there and neither of us knows for sure what happen, when or how it happened. However, you see I do not have to say who was mistaken or say that your conclusions are wrong, as that is not necessary when I consider all the evidence. The fact that Park's testimony was molded tells me that others considered all the evidence and discrepancies therein as I have done. That tells me that a reasonable inference could be drawn from all the evidence that Park did not see Kato until he had finished his first cursory search and the jury was right to conclude reasonable doubt based on the jury instruction.:)

The fact is that Park first told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. The fact is that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated that part of Park’s testimony. The fact is that no attorney in this case ever disputed that part of Park’s testimony. That is the evidence in this case and no amount of unreasonable inferences you make, or fantasy evidence you create, or false claims you make changes that evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH?:) I said Kato was not asked did he stop at the Asford walkway after completing his first cursory search ("Baker never asked Park everything he did, he only asked him about some of the things he did".) to show that my inference could be supported. You criticized my statement but now have done the same thing twice. :)

WTH? Of course, Park said that and I showed how he was trapped on cross.

WTH? If Park did not see Kato walk in any direction, how could he have said he saw Kato " Come up the driveway in this direction"?:)

WTH, I see that you do not understand the beauty of the trap. Mr. Baker got Park to admit that a minute later he saw Kato at the gate control box and he had not seen Kato walk in any direction as Park had previously testified. The simplicity of the trap helps to draw the inference that Park's testimony was molded. Park agreed to what he saw when he looked and knew how to answer certain question and surely could have answered in response to Mr. Baker's question that is not correct as he saw Kato walk up the driveway and over to the gate control box. However, he was trapped as the devil is often in the details. :)

My comment that Baker never asked Park everything he did has nothing to do with your argument that since the defense never asked Kaelin what you fantasize Kaelin did means that Kaelin could have done what you fantasize he did.

The difference my friend is that Park testified to what he did and saw but on cross Baker didn’t ask Park about everything Park testified to doing and seeing. Kaelin never ever testified to what you fantasize he did, that’s why no one ever asked Kaelin what you fantasize he did.

There was no trap by Baker and Baker never suggested, inferred, or claimed there was. The trap is all in your imagination because you can’t seem to understand that Baker’s questions and Park’s answers only reaffirmed what Park had previously testified to. Just as you can’t seem to understand that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” he was referring to the evidence under the plant leaves at Bundy, a glove and a knit hat. Just as you can’t seem to understand that when Simpson’s barber testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted DF's testimony on the issue of the photo and when he saw the blood. If as you like to say you failed to comprehend the point, doesn't mean it did not happen.:)

When the defense objected to what Ford was asked they were overruled.

IIRC the article you are referring to said that FBI chemists also believed that the small trace amount of EDTA found in the third test results was the result of a contamination in the testing equipment.

Dennis Fung testified that the stain shown on the rear gate at Bundy in the enlarged crime scene photograph taken on June 13 was in the same configuration and same location as the stain that was shown in a photograph taken on July 3 before the stain was collected.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In the socio political production, Park changed his testimony. What is it that you don't understand about this portion of Park's testimony?

A: I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON -- STRIKE THAT. HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD --

THE COURT: DIFFERENT QUESTION ON LIGHTS.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE BETWEEN THIRTY SECONDS TO A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID HE OPEN THE GATE FOR YOU?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES. "

****

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE SIX-FOOT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE, YES. "

IMHO, your refusal to accept and acknowledge this testimony is making you appear irrationally obstinate, which I don't think you are.

I understand what Park said in the criminal trial and the civil trial and I see no contradiction.

Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and stop when he got to the driveway. Almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. Park said he finished his telephone call and then waited to be let in. When no one let him in he got out of the limo and spoke with Simpson on the intercom. Park went back to the limo and continued to wait until he once again saw Kaelin when Kaelin went the gate control box and open the gate.

Clark asked Park if he remembered were Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk. Park was referring to where Kaelin was the last time he saw Kaelin before he finished his telephone conversation.

Where is the contradiction William?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The problem for you is when testimony is posted that is in conflict with your views you just say the person giving the testimony was mistaken.:shrug:

Witnesses sometimes make mistakes and when they realize they are mistaken they sometimes correct their mistakes. What does that have to do with your claim that you posted testimony that Simpson was in his house during the fifteen minutes before Park saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William,

Did I miss the part where Mr. August "proved" when that picture was taken?

Did I miss the part where he explains who directed him to the back gate to take pictures of the back gate?

Did I miss the part where he says why there were never any close up shots of this blood taken and why it could only be find in an enlargement?

Did I miss the part why he was directed to the bloody fingerprint on the back gate?

GreenIce, no you didn’t miss it you just can’t seem to remember it.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

“Fortunately, weeks before Dennis took the stand, after a painstaking examination of the photographs with a magnifying glass, Woody found something. Late one night he shouted to me to come to his cubicle, in much the same manner that Alexander Graham Bell must have shouted, "Watson come here," when he invented the telephone.

Woody had pulled out a perspective shot photographed on June 13 and taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. With a magnifying glass called a loop - our constant companion when examining the photographs in the Simpson case - Woody point out the spot to me.

One of the bloodstains on the rear gate was clearly visible. This drove a stake through the heart of the defense theory that the blood was planted weeks later.

During my direct examination of Dennis, when I attempted to introduce a blowup of this photograph, defense attorney Barry Scheck went ballistic. Scheck fought tooth and nail to keep the photograph out of evidence, "Your Honor... we have a small version of that photograph, but we never had a blownup version."

This was a spurious objection. the defense had been provided first generation photographs from the crime scene. They could have found the stain in question, just as Woody had, with a magnifying glass. Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed the photograph. Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

We'll never know, will we? Even if it was a "temper tantum", it was one more rejection by a woman that OJ was going to have to deal with. And considering how many times he attempted to call Paula that day, he must have wanted to talk to her about it. Although he also managed to hedge his bet by contacting two other women he'd previously dated as I recall.

I don't think OJ killed Nicole "for" Paula. I personally think the "Dear OJ" message was one of many straws that broke the proverbial camel's back that night and pushed a very complicated man over the line.

SF,

Paula said she broke up with Simpson because of his kids, his golf and his schedule. Nicole and Simpson had agreement that when they went to social functions with their kids, they would not bring boyfriends and girlsfriends to these events. Now as much as people want to trash and bash OJ and Nicole, on certain issues, they were united and they put their kids first in these types of situations.

I think it is fair to say that for most people, once you become a parent, you can never put being a wife/girlfriend or a husband/boyfriend again first again. At least that is how I see it. Paula never was going to be frist in OJ's life and she probably realized she would have been lucky to make in to his top 10. Nicole was always going to present in their relationship and Paula was always going to worry about OJ dropping her again for Nicole. I don't think Paula is out of line and I believe her "temper tantrum" was more of frustration because she finally got it. I think she realized that even if they did have children together, he still had very young children with Nicole as well.

Without a doubt, Simpson was womanizer. However, we again have that double standard about men cheating vs women cheating.

Simpson told Kato that he didn't think Paula was the one that night. Kato gives him a number of model. If Paula was upset about him mentioning Nicole in his letter she had to be pissed off when she found about his girls on the sides and the ones he was trying to recruit. She heard him say that he was free for the first time in his life of women. Or something to that affect. I would have been livid as well.

Paula just didn't dislike Nicole, she hated Nicole and she wished that Nicole would just "go away". And her wish came true.

Paula hated Nicole more then OJ did. And to be honest, if I got a "Dear Jane" break up message that had to do with my kids, my golf and my schedule, how could I be angry with any one who broke up with me over those reasons? Would it hurt, sure but the truth of the matter, is Simspon knew the truth of the matter with Paula and he was never going to be what she wanted him to be.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, no you didn’t miss it you just can’t seem to remember it.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

“Fortunately, weeks before Dennis took the stand, after a painstaking examination of the photographs with a magnifying glass, Woody found something. Late one night he shouted to me to come to his cubicle, in much the same manner that Alexander Graham Bell must have shouted, "Watson come here," when he invented the telephone.

Woody had pulled out a perspective shot photographed on June 13 and taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. With a magnifying glass called a loop - our constant companion when examining the photographs in the Simpson case - Woody point out the spot to me.

One of the bloodstains on the rear gate was clearly visible. This drove a stake through the heart of the defense theory that the blood was planted weeks later.

During my direct examination of Dennis, when I attempted to introduce a blowup of this photograph, defense attorney Barry Scheck went ballistic. Scheck fought tooth and nail to keep the photograph out of evidence, "Your Honor... we have a small version of that photograph, but we never had a blownup version."

This was a spurious objection. the defense had been provided first generation photographs from the crime scene. They could have found the stain in question, just as Woody had, with a magnifying glass. Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed the photograph. Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Hankaroo says when the picture was taken, he does prove when it was taken. It is on his word alone when the picture was taken. It is very possible that he didn't know when it was actually taken.

The Hankster does not explain why there were no close up pictures taken of these spots.

He does not explain who directed the photographer to these spots and told him to take pictures of them but apparently the photographer didn't listen. Which seemed to a common thread there at Bundy. Lange gives orders, no one in SID listened to a word he said, hell not even Dr. Golden listened to him.

A picture taken 15 feet a way, is not impressive or conclusive proof because it makes no sense that other evidence had their close ups taken, in fact there are pictures of MF pointing that the evidence at the photographers request, isn't there a picture of Fung standing and point to a blood drop on the back gate? I can't remember.

Also, you haven't explained why this photographer did not take a picture of a blood fingerprint at Rockingham.

And you also have to deal with MF and Rokhar's timing issue. How did the defense prove the picture was taken at while it was still dark vs how the DA's say they proved that it wasn't taken at that time?

If Rokhar's timing of the photo is up for debate, so are these pictures.

And besides, Hank Goldberg never joined the DA's team until October 1994, Woody Clark joined even later then that, how come these two man had to scour ever single picture and then have it blown up to make this find?

Don't you find it odd that not only did no one take a close up picture of this evidence, but no one told Hank about the pictures?

Also, when did the Hankster call his photographer in to verify when he took this photo?

[GreenIce]

When the defense objected to what Ford was asked they were overruled.

IIRC the article you are referring to said that FBI chemists also believed that the small trace amount of EDTA found in the third test results was the result of a contamination in the testing equipment.

Dennis Fung testified that the stain shown on the rear gate at Bundy in the enlarged crime scene photograph taken on June 13 was in the same configuration and same location as the stain that was shown in a photograph taken on July 3 before the stain was collected.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You busted your own picture. How could the stain be the exact same configuration as well as color over three weeks after the murders? After the scene was wash down, stared at, gawked at?

The most telling part of this story is that the DA's never asked Dr. Lee if he saw these stain on the back gate. Why Mr. August did they not ask him this question?

Hankster was proud of his destruction of Dr. Lee on the stand but never asked the most important question. In fact, Hank only had to ask one question to destroy the defense's case---Dr. Lee, did you see these blood drops on the back gate when you went to Bundy before July of 1994.

They never asked Dr. Baden or Dr. Wolf this question either. Again, why not?

[GreenIce]

Orenthal may have done Nicole a favor with the letter, but that wasn't his intention.

According to Petrocelli's book Simpson got Skip Taft to write the IRS letter. Taft was a friend, lawyer, and business advisor to Simpson. Taft wrote that he "made the changes that you requested but didn't get revengenful". This isn't real incriminating, but Nicole's diary about the subject makes Orenthal look worse.

She wrote in her diary that she hung up on him over that topic on June 2. The next day he called her back and said: "you hung up on me last night. You're gonna pay for this, b***h... You're holding money from the IRS. You're going to jail, you f*****g c**t".

I think the IRS situation was more than just a tax problem.

fgump2,

And what did Nicole do? She got pissed off, she got motivated and she took action to take that arrow out of his quiver. Smart girl, IMO. If Nicole was that afraid of Simpson, she never would have gotten pissed, she would have got scared and she would have curled up in a ball and just cried how he was doing her wrong. She didn't. Nicole was not a weak woman nor was she a trophy wife.

I do not consider Nicole's diaries to be evidence of anything but more of a "what OJ said now". There were no physical threats to Nicole's safety.

Nicole did have a problem with the IRS, she knew enough how to keep some money away from the government, she knew she was taking a chance at getting caught--even if they were still in the process of getting back together again. IMO.

And why were her cars still registered to Simpson's address?

[The Boys]

[QUOTE=The Boys;9198086]
Love it that the kids are only a concern when Nicole's behavior is in question.

The Boys,

IMO, this is one of the biggest double standards in our country. A man can be a horrible husband in regards to cheating, etc. But that does not make him a bad father.

However, if a woman is horrible wife, she is also a horrible mother.

I totally agree. It's crystal clear when this case is talked about --- it's man vs. woman. Listening to people talk and giving Simpson a pass at all of his funky behaviors while Nicole gets hammered.

[The Boys]

SF,

Why did Paula leave this "Dear OJ" message? What reasons did she give for breaking up with him? What was Paula's demeanor or tone on the message?
IMO, I think Paula's "Dear OJ" message was nothing more of a temper tantrum because Simpson would not take her Sydney's recital and she wanted to go. She wanted a public demonstration in front of Nicole and her family that was the woman in Simpson's life.

Also, how many answering machines or accounts did Simpson have regarding his messages? Did he have the same service for his phone in Bronco versus his own phone or business phone?

There is no evidence that Simpson loved Paula enough to kill Nicole for her. Nicole was a thorn in Paula's side and Simpson knew.

I don't think he loved Paula enough to kill Nicole ---- I think Simpson was pissed about so many things with Nicole at that time. He had dumped Paula to try to get back together with Nicole and then Nicole rejected him. And suddenly his good old back up Paula was rejecting him too! Way too much for a narcissist like Simpson to handle.

[The Boys]

No one cares more than they care for a box or rocks that MF was/is a racist, IMHO. They do care that he violated his oath to serve and protect all citizens, :). How have you been?

I've been good --- how about you? He didn't violate any oath to protect and serve all citizens --- and I don't blame him for referring to any low life gang banger in any derogatory way.

[The Boys]

Link to Simpson sticking Ms. NBS with a knife, Please?:cool:

Link equals criminal trial where he should have been convicted but a mostly black jury felt it necessary to protect their guy. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

fgump2,

And what did Nicole do? She got pissed off, she got motivated and she took action to take that arrow out of his quiver. Smart girl, IMO. If Nicole was that afraid of Simpson, she never would have gotten pissed, she would have got scared and she would have curled up in a ball and just cried how he was doing her wrong. She didn't. Nicole was not a weak woman nor was she a trophy wife.

I do not consider Nicole's diaries to be evidence of anything but more of a "what OJ said now". There were no physical threats to Nicole's safety.

Nicole did have a problem with the IRS, she knew enough how to keep some money away from the government, she knew she was taking a chance at getting caught--even if they were still in the process of getting back together again. IMO.

And why were her cars still registered to Simpson's address?


if her cars were still reguistered at simpsons and she wanted to use his address it goes to show she was not really ready to be away from oj and live her life taking care of her own business withouy being attatched in some way.
She always thought she could see other people as she pleased be free and then get him back.

She wanted the house at divorce
She wrote him a letter askinh him to let her back.
She hounded him to let her live at rockinghasm when they were trying to get back togeather.
She asked him to use his address in her tax scheme.
OJ refused all of these request.

It seems to me she was fixed on getting back to that house one way or another.

[martin II]

I've been good --- how about you? He didn't violate any oath to protect and serve all citizens --- and I don't blame him for referring to any low life gang banger in any derogatory way.

Even gang banger have rights.police are suppose to act according to the law at all times.There were no gang bangers at Bells house. BRATTON, a criminal still had rights.

[martin II]

Link equals criminal trial where he should have been convicted but a mostly black jury felt it necessary to protect their guy. :rolleyes:

Why didn't Nicol just leave OJ alone to start with and use her Parents address for the IRS.? She did not have to use ojs address.

[The Boys]

Why didn't Nicol just leave OJ alone to start with and use her Parents address for the IRS.? She did not have to use ojs address.

Why didn't he just tell her no to start with? Did you read his depo? He admits that he agreed to let her use the Rockingham address. Why do you always blame Nicole and never Simpson?

[martin II]

It may be that ojs lawyer saw a potential secrete motive that nicole may have had for making ojs address her legal address and advised oj to stay away from that scheme because it was illegal.

[The Boys]

It may be that ojs lawyer saw a potential secrete motive that nicole may have had for making ojs address her legal address and advised oj to stay away from that scheme because it was illegal.

Or it may be that Simpson just didn't care until he got dumped.

[martin II]

Why didn't he just tell her no to start with? Did you read his depo? He admits that he agreed to let her use the Rockingham address. Why do you always blame Nicole and never Simpson?

i did not read that but when he told her no she could have said okj i will use my parents.
but if she was on her own she should not have been using his address at all. she should have never used anything of his if she didn't want to have anything to do with him. being on your own means being on your own. it does not mean dipping back for help when you have a problem.it means taking care of your business totally.

[martin II]

Or it may be that Simpson just didn't care until he got dumped.

Whenever they decided it was over she had no right to come back for this kind of help. if she dumped him as you say dumping means she was finished period. why then come back seeking his help for financial reasons. she was trying to have it bhoith ways. i am finished with you but not really when it benefits me financially i want you to do something illegal for me.

[The Boys]

i did not read that but when he told her no she could have said okj i will use my parents.
but if she was on her own she should not have been using his address at all. she should have never used anything of his if she didn't want to have anything to do with him. being on your own means being on your own. it does not mean dipping back for help when you have a problem.it means taking care of your business totally.

Wasn't she dead about a week after that? After he sent that letter she immediately started handling business - she contacted a Realtor and put the Bundy condo up for sale. She started looking for places to move to ---- places far away from Simpson.

[martin II]

Or it may be that Simpson just didn't care until he got dumped.

post the letter you quoted from.

[The Boys]

Whenever they decided it was over she had no right to come back for this kind of help. if she dumped him as you say dumping means she was finished period. why then come back seeking his help for financial reasons. she was trying to have it bhoith ways. i am finished with you but not really when it benefits me financially i want you to do something illegal for me.

They were in the process of trying to reconcile when she started using the Rockingham address --- she hadn't dumped him yet.

[martin II]

Wasn't she dead about a week after that? After he sent that letter she immediately started handling business - she contacted a Realtor and put the Bundy condo up for sale. She started looking for places to move to ---- places far away from Simpson.

At dovorce she moved 7 minutes from oj.she should have moved away then unless she did not want to be to far from him.

[martin II]

They were in the process of trying to reconcile when she started using the Rockingham address --- she hadn't dumped him yet.

During this period she kept asking him to ler he move back. her reason was we will eventually be back so it makes no sesne that i cannot move back now. OJ continued to say no.
So she did not get her way and maby that is whe she left AGAIN. But oj was trying to make it work with paula and did not want nicole in his house.But nicole knew that if oj let her back that would kill paulas and anyother womans chances.

[weezer]

During this period she kept asking him to ler he move back. her reason was we will eventually be back so it makes no sesne that i cannot move back now. OJ continued to say no.
So she did not get her way and maby that is whe she left AGAIN. But oj was trying to make it work with paula and did not want nicole in his house.But nicole knew that if oj let her back that would kill paulas and anyother womans chances.

the facts are that by the time he murdered her, orenthal was out of Nicole's life except for the tormenting and stalking that he couldn't seem to stop himself from. He thought he could use the IRS to abuse her some more and when that didn't work, he got really, really mad. The kind of mad where Nicole described him as looking like an animal.

[martin II]

They were in the process of trying to reconcile when she started using the Rockingham address --- she hadn't dumped him yet.

When she "dumped" him he had already been going steady with Paula so it did not matter what she did.he and paula had been togeather since before the previous christmas. Paulkd had arranged a christmas party for oj and the kids at his ny condo and nicole came from la and crashed it on christmas eve.
Seems to me she did not want to be away.

[martin II]

look
Some believe oj was 100% at fault and had all the warts.
Some believe both had warts
Some believe nicole had none and was just a innocent lady always doing the right thing.

So be it.

[The Boys]

look
Some believe oj was 100% at fault and had all the warts.
Some believe both had warts
Some believe nicole had none and was just a innocent lady always doing the right thing.

So be it.

You forgot to add that some believe that Simpson had no warts and was an innocent gent doing all the right things.

[martin II]

You forgot to add that some believe that Simpson had no warts and was an innocent gent doing all the right things.


i did not forget as i believe most know oj was not perfect and had warts. usually both are responsible for failed relationships.some times one more that another. but this time nicole was killed so oj gets all the blame although no one here knows for sure who killed them.And i do mean NO ONE.

[martin II]

oj faults are posted here daily with nasty vile descriptions of him.When nicoles faults are pointed out people yell unfair to talk about her in that way.She was killed.

Does nicole being killed erase her negative life style before she was killed?
i don't think so.

[The Boys]

i did not forget as i believe most know oj was not perfect and had warts. usually both are responsible for failed relationships.some times one more that another. but this time nicole was killed so oj gets all the blame although no one here knows for sure who killed them.And i do mean NO ONE.

So are you admitting that you don't know either? That it could have been Simpson even though you don't think it was?

[The Boys]

oj faults are posted here daily with nasty vile descriptions of him.When nicoles faults are pointed out people yell unfair to talk about her in that way.She was killed.

Does nicole being killed erase her negative life style before she was killed?
i don't think so.

Ok martin ... time for perspective! He beat her, he threatened her, he was going to throw her AND his kids out of the Bundy condo leaving the kids to have to adjust to yet another situation, he stalked her, he cheated on her ... what did she ever do to him? As far as I can see the worst thing she ever did that affected him was that she left him ... and she paid for it with her life.

[William Anthony]

And the murder case is SO over.

I would say that is SO but as LE indicated in the Nevada case that is not SO, when the said they would get him, even though California had not. Although many have their own opinion as to Simpson being the murderer or not and are free to SO state, the fact is that Simpson cannot be found guilty of murder, regardless of whether some say SO.

[martin II]

At divorce she had about $450,000 cash. the $500,000 SF condo $10,000 monthly child support. oj paid the kids insurance and i think the insurance on her cars.

She had no crediut to get the GG house so she asked him to gurantee the rent. He did

With that kind of cash she could have moved 50 miles away if she was finished with him.But she moved 7 miles away about 5 minutes drive. it seems
she did not want to be too far away for him to come to her place or for her to go to rockingham which she did on a regular basis.

One time she came and saw Paulas pictures all over his house and had the nerve to complain to him.meanwhile she was dating 7 different guys.

When she slapped the maids face at ojs, she was not even living at his house.
She was not living there when she was demanding that oj kick kato and the maid out.calling kato a freeloader.She thought she still had the power to run his house while at the same time saying she was finished with him.

Nicole wanted to be free to do what she wanted to do but still reap certain benefits by continuing some relationship with him.
OJS irs letter told her clearly he was finished as he had never rejected her in this way previously. imo

[William Anthony]

Okay I stand corrected, Garrison wrote that an identified hair was found inside the glove but he is incorrect. In the criminal trial Deedrick testified that a short light brown Caucasian head hair was found on the Rockingham glove not inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

Thank you for standing corrected. :)

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Park first told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw on the estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. The fact is that Kaelin’s testimony corroborated that part of Park’s testimony. The fact is that no attorney in this case ever disputed that part of Park’s testimony. That is the evidence in this case and no amount of unreasonable inferences you make, or fantasy evidence you create, or false claims you make changes that evidence.

bobaugust

The fact is that Park testified that Kato walked down the pathway but Kato testified he ran. When you take this into consideration with the other discrepancies, a reasonable inference is that Park was mistaken. I do not see a discrepancy as a collaboration of testimony and I remind you that the discrepancies were testified to when the events would have been fresher in both their minds. The testimonies are what the are, despite your claim stated in a rude and uncivil manner, that they are not. :)

[martin II]

Ok martin ... time for perspective! He beat her, he threatened her, he was going to throw her AND his kids out of the Bundy condo leaving the kids to have to adjust to yet another situation, he stalked her, he cheated on her ... what did she ever do to him? As far as I can see the worst thing she ever did that affected him was that she left him ... and she paid for it with her life.

i am not surprised that these would be your opinions.

[The Boys]

i am not surprised that these would be your opinions.

I figured that would be all you had:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

My comment that Baker never asked Park everything he did has nothing to do with your argument that since the defense never asked Kaelin what you fantasize Kaelin did means that Kaelin could have done what you fantasize he did. (The defense never asked Kato everything he did, :).)

The difference my friend is that Park testified to what he did and saw but on cross Baker didn’t ask Park about everything Park testified to doing and seeing. Kaelin never ever testified to what you fantasize he did, that’s why no one ever asked Kaelin what you fantasize he did. (The difference is that Park changed his testimony and was trapped on cross, meaning that Park fantasied to seeing Kato walk up the driveway or had that fantasy implanted by "Petro and others", :).)

There was no trap by Baker and Baker never suggested, inferred, or claimed there was. The trap is all in your imagination because you can’t seem to understand that Baker’s questions and Park’s answers only reaffirmed what Park had previously testified to. Just as you can’t seem to understand that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” he was referring to the evidence under the plant leaves at Bundy, a glove and a knit hat. Just as you can’t seem to understand that when Simpson’s barber testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. (Yes, both were trapped by their own statements, :).

bobaugust

As you like to say, you fail to comprehend that evidence, such as that of dandruff, is allowed in order to draw reasonable inferences. Simpson's barber testified as to the times he would have dandruff and the Prosecution presented Simpson's hair with dandruff but a cap with Simpson's hair that the prosecution claimed he wore on the night of the murders with no dandruff. I am sure that I do not have to remind you, my friend, of the burden of proof and the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. :)

[The Boys]

So if the cops went to Rockingham already convinced that Simpson was guilty on the night of the murders then why did they treat Kato like a suspect? Kato said they shined a flashlight in his eyes, checked his shoes for blood, and interrogated him and said he felt like a criminal.

[William Anthony]

When the defense objected to what Ford was asked they were overruled.

IIRC the article you are referring to said that FBI chemists also believed that the small trace amount of EDTA found in the third test results was the result of a contamination in the testing equipment.

Dennis Fung testified that the stain shown on the rear gate at Bundy in the enlarged crime scene photograph taken on June 13 was in the same configuration and same location as the stain that was shown in a photograph taken on July 3 before the stain was collected.

bobaugust

"MR. COCHRAN: Well, you had indicated that you did not--you told us already you didn't really see any evidence collected, right? You told us that?

MR. FORD: That's correct."

The FBI believed...,:). Martz worked for the FBI. I am stating what the article said as to the research they did and that was the results that Martz stated indicated planting/manipulation of the evidence.

I have posted DF's testimony and it is what it is. :)

[William Anthony]

I understand what Park said in the criminal trial and the civil trial and I see no contradiction.

Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway and stop when he got to the driveway. Almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. Park said he finished his telephone call and then waited to be let in. When no one let him in he got out of the limo and spoke with Simpson on the intercom. Park went back to the limo and continued to wait until he once again saw Kaelin when Kaelin went the gate control box and open the gate.

Clark asked Park if he remembered were Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk. Park was referring to where Kaelin was the last time he saw Kaelin before he finished his telephone conversation.

Where is the contradiction William?

bobaugust

This is becoming quite boring and redundant. Park said in the socio political production that after he saw Simpson go into the house he was talking on the phone and he looked away paying no attention, as you like to repeat, to what Kato was doing and did not really care, but in the criminal trial he was asked what he observed Kato doing after Simpson went in the house, which he said from his memory, not "Petro's and others", Kato was still standing on the sidewalk.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, no you didn’t miss it you just can’t seem to remember it.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

“Fortunately, weeks before Dennis took the stand, after a painstaking examination of the photographs with a magnifying glass, Woody found something. Late one night he shouted to me to come to his cubicle, in much the same manner that Alexander Graham Bell must have shouted, "Watson come here," when he invented the telephone.

Woody had pulled out a perspective shot photographed on June 13 and taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. With a magnifying glass called a loop - our constant companion when examining the photographs in the Simpson case - Woody point out the spot to me.

One of the bloodstains on the rear gate was clearly visible. This drove a stake through the heart of the defense theory that the blood was planted weeks later.

During my direct examination of Dennis, when I attempted to introduce a blowup of this photograph, defense attorney Barry Scheck went ballistic. Scheck fought tooth and nail to keep the photograph out of evidence, "Your Honor... we have a small version of that photograph, but we never had a blownup version."

This was a spurious objection. the defense had been provided first generation photographs from the crime scene. They could have found the stain in question, just as Woody had, with a magnifying glass. Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed the photograph. Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."

bobaugust

A completely unbiased and impartial source. :):cool:

[William Anthony]

I've been good --- how about you? He didn't violate any oath to protect and serve all citizens --- and I don't blame him for referring to any low life gang banger in any derogatory way.

I was well but recently have not been feeling so relieved. :) I guess you think that any Caucasian female, who dates a Black male, must be dating a "low life gang banger", referring to your post on not caring if MF was a racist, and had a right to be stopped by MF and after the stop MF would find a reason to have stopped them or that, every Black drug addict with old track marks, are low life gang bangers, who deserve to have the scab pulled off making them appear fresh, or that the entire Black race should be killed because we are all low life gang bangers or have been at one time, correct? This type of thinking rings a bell to me.

[William Anthony]

Link equals criminal trial where he should have been convicted but a mostly black jury felt it necessary to protect their guy. :rolleyes:

So, you have none and only and opinion on Simpson and the "black jury", correct?

[The Boys]

I was well but recently have not been feeling so relieved. :) I guess you think that any Caucasian female, who dates a Black male, must be dating a "low life gang banger", referring to your post on not caring if MF was a racist, and had a right to be stopped by MF and after the stop MF would find a reason to have stopped them or that, every Black drug addict with old track marks, are low life gang bangers, who deserve to have the scab pulled off making them appear fresh, or that the entire Black race should be killed because we are all low life gang bangers or have been at one time, correct? This type of thinking rings a bell to me.

Yep, exactly:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Yep, exactly:rolleyes:

Do you sport the Telly Savalas look?

[martin II]

The best people to complie evidence that oj killed anyone was the LADA office. The best people to evaluate this evidence is the tryers of fact.

people posting on a message board have opinions but little expertise to do either function listed above.
Both of the above were completed over a period of 9 months and a verdict of not guilty was rendered. So why is there a problem?
i support the tryers of facts verdict as fair and in accordance with the law.

We are all taught to respect and accept the jury verdict regardless of personal feelings.imo

No one here knows who killed nicole and ron.

[martin II]

I figured that would be all you had:rolleyes:

i have plenty but i am also selective.

[martin II]

Yep, exactly:rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with being perfectly clear on ones position.
Law breakers have no rights.

[The Boys]

Do you sport the Telly Savalas look?

The bald shiny look doesn't really do it for me, but I do like to wear white.

[The Boys]

The best people to complie evidence that oj killed anyone was the LADA office. The best people to evaluate this evidence is the tryers of fact.

people posting on a message board have opinions but little expertise to do either function listed above.
Both of the above were completed over a period of 9 months and a verdict of not guilty was rendered. So why is there a problem?
i support the tryers of facts verdict as fair and in accordance with the law.

We are all taught to respect and accept the jury verdict regardless of personal feelings.imo

No one here knows who killed nicole and ron.

No martin, jurors aren't always the best people to evaluate evidence ---- if they were then we wouldn't have innocent people being freed from jail right now. There are no "intelligence" requirements for being on a jury ---- people are just randomly plucked and seated.

[The Boys]

Nothing wrong with being perfectly clear on ones position.
Law breakers have no rights.

They absolutely don't. Gang bangers who spend their entire days and nights breaking laws and hurting other people at free will with no regard for anything do not deserve to have rights.

[William Anthony]

The bald shiny look doesn't really do it for me, but I do like to wear white.

Black and white sure go well together, IMHO.

[martin II]

Yep, exactly:rolleyes:

When you say you have no problem with furhams racist views or being a racist, and that you think gang bangers should be treated unfairly by le, are you talking about gang bangers where furhman worked in black communities or gang banger in white communities too?
Are you saying that you adobt furhmans racist views against blacks and other minoraities?

[William Anthony]

No martin, jurors aren't always the best people to evaluate evidence ---- if they were then we wouldn't have innocent people being freed from jail right now. There are no "intelligence" requirements for being on a jury ---- people are just randomly plucked and seated.

Did you forget the process of voir dire?

[The Boys]

When you say you have no problem with furhams racist views or being a racist, and that you think gang bangers should be treated unfairly by le, are you talking about gang bangers where furhman worked in black communities or gang banger in white communities too?
Are you saying that you adobt furhmans racist views against blacks and other minoraities?

I wasn't aware that there's a difference in gang bangers based on race or community --- I thought they were all just lowlifes --- apparently you think somehow they're different depending on the area.

Before I answer your final question --- are you meaning to ask if I "adopt" his views? Not being rude, just needing to clarify the meaning.

[martin II]

They absolutely don't. Gang bangers who spend their entire days and nights breaking laws and hurting other people at free will with no regard for anything do not deserve to have rights.

your views are not supported by the us constitution or the CJS so what legal concept do you use to support your claim?

[William Anthony]

They absolutely don't. Gang bangers who spend their entire days and nights breaking laws and hurting other people at free will with no regard for anything do not deserve to have rights.

I think the KKK should have and have been allowed to have rights until proven guilty in a court of law and had some of those rights taken away due to incarceration. I think it was one of America's first group of gang bangers.

[martin II]

I wasn't aware that there's a difference in gang bangers based on race or community --- I thought they were all just lowlifes --- apparently you think somehow they're different depending on the area.

Before I answer your final question --- are you meaning to ask if I "adopt" his views? Not being rude, just needing to clarify the meaning.

maby i should ask another way

you said you have no problem with furhmans racist vews or him being a racist. you know better than i do the exact words of your post. can you be more clear on what you meant?

[The Boys]

Did you forget the process of voir dire?

Which isn't really used to weed out "stupid" --- just more of an attempt to weed out the boys and girls they think will let bias get in their way --- obviously didn't work when the Simpson jury was picked.

[William Anthony]

I wasn't aware that there's a difference in gang bangers based on race or community --- I thought they were all just lowlifes --- apparently you think somehow they're different depending on the area.

Before I answer your final question --- are you meaning to ask if I "adopt" his views? Not being rude, just needing to clarify the meaning.

Then how can you not care whether MF was racist and I agree that I do not care that he had racist views, only those statements with the conduct that evidences how he interacted with the Black community and interracial couples in his position of authority.

[The Boys]

your views are not supported by the us constitution or the CJS so what legal concept do you use to support your claim?

It doesn't have to be supported martin --- that's why it's my view.

[The Boys]

maby i should ask another way

you said you have no problem with furhmans racist vews or him being a racist. you know better than i do the exact words of your post. can you be more clear on what you meant?

It means that I don't care if he's racist. It's really not more complicated than that.

[martin II]

correction
this is your post

And Fuhrman didn't plant anything. Or at least nothing proves that he did. And I don't care if he's racist or not.

Can you explain why you don't care?

[martin II]

It doesn't have to be supported martin --- that's why it's my view.

thanks

[The Boys]

Then how can you not care whether MF was racist and I agree that I do not care that he had racist views, only those statements with the conduct that evidences how he interacted with the Black community and interracial couples in his position of authority.

I don't think he interacted with the "black community" all the same way --- I think he interacted with different people in different ways --- and I think that's clear by the fact that some black people from the black community made it a point to talk about how good they were treated by him --- to the point that ... crap, I don't have his name --- there was a black guy that said he was arrested for something that he swore he didn't do and that Fuhrman believed him and worked around the clock on his case and actually proved his innocence. Doesn't strike me as a guy that hates blacks as a whole --- and maybe I'm wrong, maybe he hates them all and some of these stories are just a cover, I don't know cause I don't know the guy but it definitely seems contradictory to the devil we have been made to believe he is.

Sounds to me like he was damn good at detective work.

[martin II]

They absolutely don't. Gang bangers who spend their entire days and nights breaking laws and hurting other people at free will with no regard for anything do not deserve to have rights.

i am relieved that we will never see you in a le uniform.Thanks for that.

[martin II]

I don't think he interacted with the "black community" all the same way --- I think he interacted with different people in different ways --- and I think that's clear by the fact that some black people from the black community made it a point to talk about how good they were treated by him --- to the point that ... crap, I don't have his name --- there was a black guy that said he was arrested for something that he swore he didn't do and that Fuhrman believed him and worked around the clock on his case and actually proved his innocence. Doesn't strike me as a guy that hates blacks as a whole --- and maybe I'm wrong, maybe he hates them all and some of these stories are just a cover, I don't know cause I don't know the guy but it definitely seems contradictory to the devil we have been made to believe he is.

Sounds to me like he was damn good at detective work.


no reason to by shy.

[The Boys]

correction
this is your post

And Fuhrman didn't plant anything. Or at least nothing proves that he did. And I don't care if he's racist or not.

Can you explain why you don't care?

Because being racist isn't illegal and so far I haven't seen anything that proves that he did something illegal because of any racist views that he might or might not have.

[William Anthony]

I don't think he interacted with the "black community" all the same way --- I think he interacted with different people in different ways --- and I think that's clear by the fact that some black people from the black community made it a point to talk about how good they were treated by him --- to the point that ... crap, I don't have his name --- there was a black guy that said he was arrested for something that he swore he didn't do and that Fuhrman believed him and worked around the clock on his case and actually proved his innocence. Doesn't strike me as a guy that hates blacks as a whole --- and maybe I'm wrong, maybe he hates them all and some of these stories are just a cover, I don't know cause I don't know the guy but it definitely seems contradictory to the devil we have been made to believe he is.

Sounds to me like he was damn good at detective work.

Have you not heard of a person acting good to a few to hide what he is doing to the many? How can you dismiss his statement that the entire Black race should be bound together and burned/killed?

When was the last time you had a hearing exam, :)?

[William Anthony]

Because being racist isn't illegal and so far I haven't seen anything that proves that he did something illegal because of any racist views that he might or might not have.

Did you miss the part were he was convicted of perjury, because of his racist views or, if you will, using the N word in regard to members of the Black race?

[The Boys]

Have you not heard of a person acting good to a few to hide what he is doing to the many? How can you dismiss his statement that the entire Black race should be bound together and burned/killed?

When was the last time you had a hearing exam, :)?

Blah blah blah --- talk on a screenplay tape.

About 5 years ago or so.

[The Boys]

Did you miss the part were he was convicted of perjury, because of his racist views or, if you will, using the N word in regard to members of the Black race?

What's your point? I don't care if he's racist so why do I care if he said the N word and lied about it? had nothing to do with the case. Blacks all over the place use the same language.

[weezer]

Did you miss the part were he was convicted of perjury, because of his racist views or, if you will, using the N word in regard to members of the Black race?

oh william -- you know that Fuhrman wasn't convicted of perjury because of his racist views -- shame on you for telling that big ole fib! :cuss::punch:

[martin II]

Because being racist isn't illegal and so far I haven't seen anything that proves that he did something illegal because of any racist views that he might or might not have.

not giving law breakers their rights is illegal. but in your little minute view they have none.

[The Boys]

not giving law breakers their rights is illegal. but in your little minute view they have none.

LOL --- I'm not in a position to violate the rights of anyone --- law breakers or not --- so my view is just that and it's not illegal.

[The Boys]

The beauty for me is that Mark Fuhrman walks around free and Simpson is in the clink. Probably be there for awhile too when his appeal goes nowhere.

Justice, sweet justice. Love the taste of it.

[The Boys]

oh william -- you know that Fuhrman wasn't convicted of perjury because of his racist views -- shame on you for telling that big ole fib! :cuss::punch:

Twist and twist:tongue:

[martin II]

Because being racist isn't illegal and so far I haven't seen anything that proves that he did something illegal because of any racist views that he might or might not have.

i am sure you will ignore the fact that he planted the knife on Bratton. but you you may not care.

[William Anthony]

Blah blah blah --- talk on a screenplay tape.

About 5 years ago or so.

That statement was not made in the screenplay. It was made to a witness. :):cool:

[martin II]

LOL --- I'm not in a position to violate the rights of anyone --- law breakers or not --- so my view is just that and it's not illegal.

thank god

[weezer]

i am sure you will ignore the fact that he planted the knife on Bratton. but you you may not care.

martin, bratton had the knife when he was at the ATM. I don't believe there was evidence as to who moved bratton's knife to where he was when he was captured. and don't you think it's odd that bratton has never denied the knife was his? LOL

[William Anthony]

Twist and twist:tongue:

There is no need for me to twist as this is what I said.

Did you miss the part were he was convicted of perjury, because of his racist views or, if you will, using the N word in regard to members of the Black race?

I see that you seem to hold intelligence in high esteem, so let me intelligently explain this to you. Perjury-to tell a lie under oath about a material issue. There was a stipulation, an agreement by both parties that MF was racist. Racist hold racist views and speak racist words. Ergo, because of his racist views, MF spoke the racist words, about which he lied. :patriot:

[The Boys]

thank god

Tell me about it --- cause I'd break the rules at the same time I was breaking faces.

[The Boys]

That statement was not made in the screenplay. It was made to a witness. :):cool:

Bell?

[William Anthony]

The beauty for me is that Mark Fuhrman walks around free and Simpson is in the clink. Probably be there for awhile too when his appeal goes nowhere.

Justice, sweet justice. Love the taste of it.

I understand that you feel that a man convicted of believing he was trying to reclaim his property and was not allowed that as a defense is incarcerated, while a racist LE member, who admitted to corrupt activities as a member of LE, whether true or not and was convicted of perjury, is to some extent embraced by America is sweet justice. :)

[William Anthony]

Bell?

That is the question or did you mean Ms. Kathleen Bell? :):cool:

[weezer]

There is no need for me to twist as this is what I said.



I see that you seem to hold intelligence in high esteem, so let me intelligently explain this to you. Perjury-to tell a lie under oath about a material issue. There was a stipulation, an agreement by both parties that MF was racist. Racist hold racist views and speak racist words. Ergo, because of his racist views, MF spoke the racist words, about which he lied. :patriot:

tsk, tsk, tsk -- you do understand that Fuhrman wasn't convicted of being a racist, right? I mean, you posted he was but I'm just almost positive you would know better. I mean, with you being a wannabe and all. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Tell me about it --- cause I'd break the rules at the same time I was breaking faces.

That face breaking may be why there is a war on our streets today between LE and some citizens and/or criminals.

[William Anthony]

Some will always be a never could be and should always stay a never can be, as they never will nor can understand. :)

[martin II]

Blah blah blah --- talk on a screenplay tape.

About 5 years ago or so.


BELL

MS Bell was not in the screen play, she was in her apartment when he spoke about what he did to mixed couples and blacks.

[The Boys]

That is the question or did you mean Ms. Kathleen Bell? :):cool:

Yeah, that's what Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman said --- and then went to a bar with him and introduced him to her friend --- that sounds real legit. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Yeah, that's what Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman said --- and then went to a bar with him and introduced him to her friend --- that sounds real legit. :rolleyes:

Allow me to correct you, if you will. Ms. Bell did not go anywhere with MF nor did she introduce him to her friend. :)

[William Anthony]

Help!! Tell me how saying convicted of perjury is saying convicted of being a racist?:)

[martin II]

Tell me about it --- cause I'd break the rules at the same time I was breaking faces.

Real tough guy. Right? i don't think you would be breaking anything but the law that is if you had the b**** to try to do what you claim you would do. hahaha

[The Boys]

I understand that you feel that a man convicted of believing he was trying to reclaim his property and was not allowed that as a defense is incarcerated, while a racist LE member, who admitted to corrupt activities as a member of LE, whether true or not and was convicted of perjury, is to some extent embraced by America is sweet justice. :)

The only thing Fuhrman was ever convicted of is perjury. Surely your high esteem for the legal system :rolleyes: means that you understand that perjury is the only thing he was convicted of and the rest is just opinion and hasn't been proven.

Or do the rules just change when the guy in question is white?

But yes --- it is sweet justice. It's a really good feeling as a matter of fact.

[The Boys]

Real tough guy. Right? i don't think you would be breaking anything but the law that is if you had the b**** to try to do what you claim you would do. hahaha

LOL --- I thought you'd get the fact that I was quoting Fuhrman. Jokes on you. hahaha.

[martin II]

Yeah, that's what Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman said --- and then went to a bar with him and introduced him to her friend --- that sounds real legit. :rolleyes:

i say ms bell did not go any place with furhman. if you know that she did post the link.

[William Anthony]

The only thing Fuhrman was ever convicted of is perjury. Surely your high esteem for the legal system :rolleyes: means that you understand that perjury is the only thing he was convicted of and the rest is just opinion and hasn't been proven.

Or do the rules just change when the guy in question is white?

But yes --- it is sweet justice. It's a really good feeling as a matter of fact.

That is why I said MF was convicted of perjury and one who has my high esteem for the legal profession realizes that it did not have to be proven that MF was a racist as both parties stipulated, de facto, to that fact and the defense was only obligated to provide evidence that MF planted evidence, which they did, IMHO>.

America does seem to embrace a White convict and, if that is your idea of sweet justice, I understand. :);):cool:

[weezer]

That is why I said MF was convicted of perjury and one who has my high esteem for the legal profession realizes that it did not have to be proven that MF was a racist as both parties stipulated, de facto, to that fact and the defense was only obligated to provide evidence that MF planted evidence, which they did, IMHO>.

America does seem to embrace a White convict and, if that is your idea of sweet justice, I understand. :);):cool:

tsk, tsk, tsk william -- another big ole fib: there was and has never been proof of any kind that Fuhrman and/or any other LE planted evidence. It's one thing to hate the guy because you believe he's racist, it's quite another to purposely 'misstate' the facts. ;)

[William Anthony]

Please, if a poster is intent on starting an argument with another poster and making false accusations against the poster, I ask you to remember the moderator's instructions on disrespect and ignoring the post, as I intend to do after this one.

"...the defense was only obligated to provide evidence that MF planted evidence, which they did, IMHO>."

I never said that the defense proved or was obligated to prove that MF planted evidence.

[martin II]

LOL --- I thought you'd get the fact that I was quoting Fuhrman. Jokes on you. hahaha.

i cannot read your mind. only your post.

twist twist

[martin II]

Yeah, that's what Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman said --- and then went to a bar with him and introduced him to her friend --- that sounds real legit. :rolleyes:

ms bell and her roomates were in the living room when furhman did his regular racist rant.

[weezer]

Please, if a poster is intent on starting an argument with another poster and making false accusations against the poster, I ask you to remember the moderator's instructions on disrespect and ignoring the post, as I intend to do after this one.

"...the defense was only obligated to provide evidence that MF planted evidence, which they did, IMHO>."

I never said that the defense proved or was obligated to prove that MF planted evidence.

wouldn't this be considered what you always refer to as a 'circular argument'?

"...the defense was only obligated to provide evidence that MF planted evidence

". . .I never said that the defense proved or was obligated to prove that MF planted evidence."

[weezer]

ms bell and her roomates were in the living room when furhman did his regular racist rant.

martin, did the other 'roomates' also testify?

[martin II]

No martin, jurors aren't always the best people to evaluate evidence ---- if they were then we wouldn't have innocent people being freed from jail right now. There are no "intelligence" requirements for being on a jury ---- people are just randomly plucked and seated.

NOPE
People are usually freed from jail because of prosecutor misconduct.Witholding evidence and putting on witnesses that lie for the prosecution. fact.

[martin II]

the community is made up all types of people with different education levels,financial statue and various travel experiences and life experiences.
it would be silly to require some special intelligence ability for jury duty. how would you measure in the first place.Only PHD. MD. lawyers, engineers etc. hahaha

[William Anthony]

I think that one must look to find the definitions of evidence and proof.

[William Anthony]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proof

[GreenIce]

Or it may be that Simpson just didn't care until he got dumped.

The boys,

What is is your evidence that Nicole dumped Simpson? From her diaries, it says they agreed to split and they were going back to every other weekend with the kids.

Who was also in the room when they decided to end their relationship? Why did they end it? Did they end because they just couldn't make it work?

Simpson found love and happiness again after Nicole, Nicole did not. It appears to me that they kept to the terms and the length of time they were going to try to make it. If they made it year, Nicole would back into Rockingham and maybe later re-marry. It wasn't working.

And believe it or not, woman do have pride and we do like to brag that we can "dump" a man just as good as any man can "dump" a woman. I have not heard one reason why it wasn't working.

We know why it wasn't working with Paula, but I have not read anything other then Nicole's sudden extreme behavior and seemed like everybody was "beefing with everybody else" and Simpson was happy to take himself out of the mix.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

And what did Nicole do? She got pissed off, she got motivated and she took action to take that arrow out of his quiver. Smart girl, IMO. If Nicole was that afraid of Simpson, she never would have gotten pissed, she would have got scared and she would have curled up in a ball and just cried how he was doing her wrong. She didn't. Nicole was not a weak woman nor was she a trophy wife.

I do not consider Nicole's diaries to be evidence of anything but more of a "what OJ said now". There were no physical threats to Nicole's safety.
There may have been no threats to Nicole's safety that you know about, but she felt threatened, and others knew about it. SHe told one man in 1992 that she thought he would stab her to death, then cut the pieces up and throw them off a freeway. She told at least 4 people that she thought Orenthal would kill her. THis doesn't register on you? Nicole did have a problem with the IRS, she knew enough how to keep some money away from the government, she knew she was taking a chance at getting caught--even if they were still in the process of getting back together again. IMO.

And why were her cars still registered to Simpson's address?
She dumped him in May, and they had some bitter words afterwards. Did you expect her to change the car registrations immediately afterwards. She might have done that after resolving the IRS situation - if she had lived to do that

Do you think the diary entries were made up? Do you think Orenthal said those things? I think he did say those things. He denied those statements in the civil trial, and I think he lied, perjury.

IF two people have been having bitter arguments, and one of the unexpectidly dies, that usually provokes feelings of remorse in the survivor. And yet Orenthal never expressed remorse about his angry behavior.

Most NG (not guilty people) have good memories for the anti-social things that Mark Fuhrman said. They manage to ignore the anti social-things that Orenthal said.

Part of my point was that Orenthals letter to Nicole about the IRS on June 6 wasn't primarily a business letter about taxes; it was a grudge letter.

[William Anthony]

What's your point? I don't care if he's racist so why do I care if he said the N word and lied about it? had nothing to do with the case. Blacks all over the place use the same language.

Pardon me for overlooking you last statement, as it implies that "Blacks all over the place" set the standard for English to be used by Caucasians. ;):cool:

[fgump2]

The boys,

What is is your evidence that Nicole dumped Simpson? From her diaries, it says they agreed to split and they were going back to every other weekend with the kids. According the Petrocelli's book, Orenthal's friend A. Austin said that Nicole dumped Orenthal and Orenthal was physically and emotionally upset about it. I think other people told Petrocelli that also, although Austin may have been the only one to say that under oath. Also Nicole told some friends, such as Kris Jenner and Faye Resnick, that she had dumped Orenthal and feared for her life because of it.

Who was also in the room when they decided to end their relationship? Why did they end it? Did they end because they just couldn't make it work?

Simpson found love and happiness again after Nicole, Nicole did not. That isn't what Allen Austin said It appears to me that they kept to the terms and the length of time they were going to try to make it. If they made it year, Nicole would back into Rockingham and maybe later re-marry. It wasn't working.

And believe it or not, woman do have pride and we do like to brag that we can "dump" a man just as good as any man can "dump" a woman. I have not heard one reason why it wasn't working.

We know why it wasn't working with Paula, but I have not read anything other then Nicole's sudden extreme behavior and seemed like everybody was "beefing with everybody else" and Simpson was happy to take himself out of the mix.

As for reasons why it wasn't working, does physical and emotional abuse mean anything? How about fear that Orenthal would kill her?

[William Anthony]

Do you think the diary entries were made up? Do you think Orenthal said those things? I think he did say those things. He denied those statements in the civil trial, and I think he lied, perjury. (There was only one person I know of that was convicted of perjury.)

IF two people have been having bitter arguments, and one of the unexpectidly dies, that usually provokes feelings of remorse in the survivor. And yet Orenthal never expressed remorse about his angry behavior. (I thought he did in his suicide letter.)

Most NG (not guilty people) have good memories for the anti-social things that Mark Fuhrman said. They manage to ignore the anti social-things that Orenthal said.

Part of my point was that Orenthals letter to Nicole about the IRS on June 6 wasn't primarily a business letter about taxes; it was a grudge letter.

One can read the same things and get different ideas, which only goes to show that there is some doubt about what they prove. I understand your feelings as to what you think they prove.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You busted your own picture. How could the stain be the exact same configuration as well as color over three weeks after the murders? After the scene was wash down, stared at, gawked at?

The most telling part of this story is that the DA's never asked Dr. Lee if he saw these stain on the back gate. Why Mr. August did they not ask him this question?

Hankster was proud of his destruction of Dr. Lee on the stand but never asked the most important question. In fact, Hank only had to ask one question to destroy the defense's case---Dr. Lee, did you see these blood drops on the back gate when you went to Bundy before July of 1994.

They never asked Dr. Baden or Dr. Wolf this question either. Again, why not?

GreenIce, Simpson’s defense never questioned the fact that the first generation crime scene photographs they were provided were taken on June 13. There were no photographs specifically taken of the blood on the rear gate on June 13. Dennis Fung testified he never looked at the rear gate for any blood stains on June 13.

The fact is that one of the crime scene photographs taken on June 13 did show one of the stains on the rear gate that the defense claimed had been planted three weeks later. That photograph conclusively proved that defense claim false.

Dennis Fung never said anything about the color of the blood stain on the rear gate. He testified that the stain shown in the June 13 photograph was in the same configuration and same location as the stain that was shown in a photograph taken on July 3 before the stain was collected.

Seven different police officers testified to seeing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders. Are you saying that you know that Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden also saw the blood on the rear gate at Bundy?

The photograph taken of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken after Fuhrman found the glove at Rockingham and returned to Bundy to see if it was a match to the Bundy glove. Simpson’s defense never proved that photograph was taken at night. In the civil trial Officer Riske testified he saw when that photograph was taken and he said it was when Fuhrman had returned to Bundy from Rockingham.

January 22, 1996

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's get the contact sheets. What you are going to see is that the photo of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was, like, number 36, I think, on the roll, and --
MR. FOSTER: 34.
MR. PETROCELLI: 34. You're going to see that the sun is coming up in the east already, long before the photo -- Why don't you point out where the sun is going out in the east.
MR. BAKER: There's no testimony the sun is coming up in the east in that photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: You see that, it's facing east. You can see the sun coming up.
That's -- that's -- there's a -- the sun coming up -- one, two, three, four, five six -- that's photo number 6. That's photo 6. Now go to 8, Steve; to photo 8. Here's number 46 (indicating to Elmo) You can see the sun coming up in the east right there. Look at that. Sunrise was 5:40, 5:42 a.m. that morning. Here's Fuhrman way down here in frames 34 and 35, pointing to a glove. This is long after the sun's coming up. They want you to believe that this is taken at nighttime, at 4:00 in the morning. Just look at photographs. You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. Look at the photographs.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thank you for standing corrected. :)

You are welcome, now lets see if you admit that you were incorrect when you posted that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The fact is that Park testified that Kato walked down the pathway but Kato testified he ran. When you take this into consideration with the other discrepancies, a reasonable inference is that Park was mistaken. I do not see a discrepancy as a collaboration of testimony and I remind you that the discrepancies were testified to when the events would have been fresher in both their minds. The testimonies are what the are, despite your claim stated in a rude and uncivil manner, that they are not. :)

You’re the only one who has ever made the inference that Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and your inference is not reasonable..

The fact that Kaelin testified in the grand jury that he was running down the pathway and in the criminal trial he testified he walked down the pathway, and in the civil trial he testified he was walking briskly seems to me that not only is this not very significant but if anyone was mistaken it was Kaelin when he said he was running. Witnesses can make mistakes regardless of when they testify.

The proof that your inferences are not reasonable is that no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that this insignificant discrepancy meant anything. As well as the fact that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway. As well as the fact that your inference is based on mistaken testimony by Park who later corrected his mistake when he testified that he never saw what Kaelin did before he saw him go to the gate control box. As well as the fact that Kaelin’s consistent testimony as to what he said he actually did when he came out from behind the garage contradicts your inference.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

As you like to say, you fail to comprehend that evidence, such as that of dandruff, is allowed in order to draw reasonable inferences. Simpson's barber testified as to the times he would have dandruff and the Prosecution presented Simpson's hair with dandruff but a cap with Simpson's hair that the prosecution claimed he wore on the night of the murders with no dandruff. I am sure that I do not have to remind you, my friend, of the burden of proof and the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. :)

I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the facts in this case that the only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was a month after the murders when he was incarcerated. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that on the day that Simpson was arrested, four days after the murders, he went through a battery of tests including his hair samples taken. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that if Simpson’s attorneys had evidence that Simpson had dandruff then they would have presented it. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.

Your inferences are not reasonable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"MR. COCHRAN: Well, you had indicated that you did not--you told us already you didn't really see any evidence collected, right? You told us that?

MR. FORD: That's correct."

The FBI believed...,:). Martz worked for the FBI. I am stating what the article said as to the research they did and that was the results that Martz stated indicated planting/manipulation of the evidence.

I have posted DF's testimony and it is what it is. :)

Ford did not see the socks collected but he testified that he waited to video tape the bedroom until Fung had completed his work there and that’s why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

The fact is that no EDTA was found in the two evidence samples in the first two tests that were conducted and the fact that the third test results showed a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence samples as well as Martz’s own nonpreserved blood is evidence of contamination, not planting.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is becoming quite boring and redundant. Park said in the socio political production that after he saw Simpson go into the house he was talking on the phone and he looked away paying no attention, as you like to repeat, to what Kato was doing and did not really care, but in the criminal trial he was asked what he observed Kato doing after Simpson went in the house, which he said from his memory, not "Petro's and others", Kato was still standing on the sidewalk.

Yes I agree this is becoming quite boring because you still can’t seem to grasp what Park actually testified to.

Park testified that after he saw Simpson enter his house he saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Those windows were on the Ashford side of the house behind where Park said Kaelin stopped. After Park saw those lights come on he testified that he finished his conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. When Clark asked Park if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house Park answered he was still standing on the sideway referring to the last time Park remembered seeing Kaelin before he finished his telephone conversation with his boss.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

A completely unbiased and impartial source. :):cool:

That’s right the source who had the photograph entered into evidence.

[martin II]

As for reasons why it wasn't working, does physical and emotional abuse mean anything? How about fear that Orenthal would kill her?

If Nicole was so afraid of oj at every turn, can you explain all of her trips to his house. Can you explain the trips to his bed.

Nicoles writings in her diary did not seem to jive with her actual activities with oj. She did not seem to ever stay away. When she got the requested divoice instead of moving away from him she moved 5 minutes away.same is true when she moved to Bundy.She came up with the idea to try for a year to make it work.All the time asking oj to le her move back to Rockinhgham.
When the year was almost over oj was dating Paula steady and it was oj that called it quits because of Nicoles changed personality. This was supported by her friends confusion of her actions that did not seem to be the Nicole they knew.

So i am not sure she was afraid as she wrote in her diary or what she said to some people.
You ask if it was made up.Idon't know but her actions did not show that she was afraid. imo

[martin II]

As for reasons why it wasn't working, does physical and emotional abuse mean anything? How about fear that Orenthal would kill her?

Nicole stated that oj only hit her once. There was no evidence of emotional abuse. Did you just make this up.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, Simpson’s defense never questioned the fact that the first generation crime scene photographs they were provided were taken on June 13. There were no photographs specifically taken of the blood on the rear gate on June 13. Dennis Fung testified he never looked at the rear gate for any blood stains on June 13.

The fact is that one of the crime scene photographs taken on June 13 did show one of the stains on the rear gate that the defense claimed had been planted three weeks later. That photograph conclusively proved that defense claim false.

Dennis Fung never said anything about the color of the blood stain on the rear gate. He testified that the stain shown in the June 13 photograph was in the same configuration and same location as the stain that was shown in a photograph taken on July 3 before the stain was collected.

Seven different police officers testified to seeing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders. Are you saying that you know that Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden also saw the blood on the rear gate at Bundy?

The photograph taken of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken after Fuhrman found the glove at Rockingham and returned to Bundy to see if it was a match to the Bundy glove. Simpson’s defense never proved that photograph was taken at night. In the civil trial Officer Riske testified he saw when that photograph was taken and he said it was when Fuhrman had returned to Bundy from Rockingham.

January 22, 1996

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's get the contact sheets. What you are going to see is that the photo of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was, like, number 36, I think, on the roll, and --
MR. FOSTER: 34.
MR. PETROCELLI: 34. You're going to see that the sun is coming up in the east already, long before the photo -- Why don't you point out where the sun is going out in the east.
MR. BAKER: There's no testimony the sun is coming up in the east in that photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: You see that, it's facing east. You can see the sun coming up.
That's -- that's -- there's a -- the sun coming up -- one, two, three, four, five six -- that's photo number 6. That's photo 6. Now go to 8, Steve; to photo 8. Here's number 46 (indicating to Elmo) You can see the sun coming up in the east right there. Look at that. Sunrise was 5:40, 5:42 a.m. that morning. Here's Fuhrman way down here in frames 34 and 35, pointing to a glove. This is long after the sun's coming up. They want you to believe that this is taken at nighttime, at 4:00 in the morning. Just look at photographs. You don't have to believe a word I'm saying. Look at the photographs.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Bottom line, there is no logical or reasonable explaination why no pictures were taken of those blood drops if 7 people officers saw them.

There is no logical reason that it took Lange almost 3 weeks later to realize that Fung did not collect the blood drops on the back gate.

If all these of the cops saw these blood drops, why didn't anyone make sure pictures were taken of it?

Also, you have yet to prove that the pictures you claim were taken on June 13 were actually taken on that day. Again, what is the proof of date?

It was "Known" within less then 2 hours after the bodies were discovered that the killer used the back gate to leave. Riske, I believe also saw the bloody fingerprint on the gate----yet no photos were taken of this? The back gate was not looked at by Fung or Mozzola--who's job is to collect blood evidence.

I believe Mozzola was asked why didn't collect certain evidence. Her replay was something like, we only collect what were are told to collect. So no one told them to collect the blood fingerprint?

If those blood drops were there when Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee went to Bundy, they would have seen them. They would have known that the killer left by the back gate. So why didn't the DA's use them to prove the blood on the back gate wasn't planted?

The reasoning behind sending MF and Phillips back to Bundy to see if the gloves match makes no sense. What if they didn't match that means Simpson was in the clear?

Dennis Fung testified that he was never told by Lange to collect blood stains off of the back gate. So who is lying? What I did find interesting in Lange in VA's book, they say something like that after Lange told Fung to collect to the blood on the back gate, someone in SID told him not to collect it. Again, who is lying?

[GreenIce]

Ford did not see the socks collected but he testified that he waited to video tape the bedroom until Fung had completed his work there and that’s why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

The fact is that no EDTA was found in the two evidence samples in the first two tests that were conducted and the fact that the third test results showed a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence samples as well as Martz’s own nonpreserved blood is evidence of contamination, not planting.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Why didn't the DA's use the testimony of the first two detectives who entered Simpson's bedroom regarding the socks?

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I am not sure if you know the answer to this. If a shrink thinks that a woman is a dangerous relationship, that the shrink feels that the woman's life is in danger, aren't they obligated to inform the woman that she is in danger, that a letter is written not only to warn the woman but to cover themself from any lawsuit that might be filed against them if they did not warn the woman?

[William Anthony]

You are welcome, now lets see if you admit that you were incorrect when you posted that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

Why would I admit that I was incorrect when I said that an unidentified hair was found inside the Rockingham glove, when I supplied my source for the statement and I am sure you realize that people say on to mean the inside or outside, as in I found it on the inside of the house or I found it on the outside of the house. :)

[William Anthony]

You’re the only one who has ever made the inference that Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and your inference is not reasonable.. (Thank you for finally using the word inference and noting that I have the ability to think for myself, if it is as you claim but I think the magnificent one realized it when he told the jury that Park was mistaken and so did the jury when they asked for a read back and so did many of the other lawyers, especially Petro by the evidence that he molded Park's testimony. :))

The fact that Kaelin testified in the grand jury that he was running down the pathway and in the criminal trial he testified he walked down the pathway, and in the civil trial he testified he was walking briskly seems to me that not only is this not very significant but if anyone was mistaken it was Kaelin when he said he was running. Witnesses can make mistakes regardless of when they testify. (So, how did you decide when Park made the mistake and what he was mistaken about? You see I just consider all the evidence and draw the inference from that evidence and need not be correct or incorrect, because the discrepancies leans toward reasonable doubt and not beyond a reasonable doubt.):)

The proof that your inferences are not reasonable is that no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that this insignificant discrepancy meant anything. As well as the fact that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway. As well as the fact that your inference is based on mistaken testimony by Park who later corrected his mistake when he testified that he never saw what Kaelin did before he saw him go to the gate control box. As well as the fact that Kaelin’s consistent testimony as to what he said he actually did when he came out from behind the garage contradicts your inference.

bobaugust

You seem to dismiss the fact that the magnificent one told the jury that Park was mistaken and the Mr. Baker ridiculed Park's testimony and trapped him in his changed/molded testimony. :) Perhaps, you do not understand or, as you like to say comprehend that those lawyers suggested, inferred, and claimed that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway, through their arguments and cross examinations without feeling the necessity to specifically spell it out to those they felt were sophisticated enough to comprehend the testimony for themselves. :)

[William Anthony]

Yes I agree this is becoming quite boring because you still can’t seem to grasp what Park actually testified to.

Park testified that after he saw Simpson enter his house he saw lights come on in the downstairs windows. Those windows were on the Ashford side of the house behind where Park said Kaelin stopped. After Park saw those lights come on he testified that he finished his conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. When Clark asked Park if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house Park answered he was still standing on the sideway referring to the last time Park remembered seeing Kaelin before he finished his telephone conversation with his boss.

bobaugust

Oh bobaugust, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

"Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT HE HAD?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES. "

So you see he was not asked what he remembered but what he saw and observed.

****

Q: AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

****

"Q: AFTER YOU HUNG UP WITH DALE ST. JOHN YOU SAID YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO?

A: YES. "

****

"Q: AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T"

****

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. (You do understand that the word still indicates he was standing there in addition to the thirty seconds he talked to his boss and after Simpson went into the house?)

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE SIX-FOOT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE, YES. "

****


"Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID HE OPEN THE GATE FOR YOU?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES. "

Surely, you jest when you suggest that Kato did his first cursory search, and went to the gate box within twenty or thirty seconds, as Park testified that Simpson answered the intercom immediately, after standing on the sidewalk for a minute and waving at Park.:)

[William Anthony]

That’s right the source who had the photograph entered into evidence.

Yes, the source that had the photo entered into evidence had to be unbiased and impartial in his depiction in his work of fiction as to what transpired.:)

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I am not sure if you know the answer to this. If a shrink thinks that a woman is a dangerous relationship, that the shrink feels that the woman's life is in danger, aren't they obligated to inform the woman that she is in danger, that a letter is written not only to warn the woman but to cover themself from any lawsuit that might be filed against them if they did not warn the woman?

That I don't know the answer to but I do think that if they think a patient is dangerous to themselves or others, they are obligated to inform the authorities and I believe your question indicates a practice that should be followed if it isn't.

[tv]

Nicole stated that oj only hit her once. There was no evidence of emotional abuse. Did you just make this up.

Telling her she was fat and disgusting while she was pregnant was emotional abuse. That's just one example. Nicole stated ONCE that he only hit her one time but she told other people at other times that it was ongoing abuse, she put it in her diary, took photos of the marks and there were witnesses that testified they saw Simpson hit her.

[GreenIce]

Do you think the diary entries were made up? Do you think Orenthal said those things? I think he did say those things. He denied those statements in the civil trial, and I think he lied, perjury.

IF two people have been having bitter arguments, and one of the unexpectidly dies, that usually provokes feelings of remorse in the survivor. And yet Orenthal never expressed remorse about his angry behavior.

Most NG (not guilty people) have good memories for the anti-social things that Mark Fuhrman said. They manage to ignore the anti social-things that Orenthal said.

Part of my point was that Orenthals letter to Nicole about the IRS on June 6 wasn't primarily a business letter about taxes; it was a grudge letter.

fgump2,

I do believe the diaries were at the very least "enhanced". I question when the diaries were started as well as the full content of them, all of them. His use of foul language is hardly surprising in this day and age, however, there is no proof that he did in fact use this language.

In the tapes that we heard, I do not believe that Simpson called Nicole any foul names. I remember his ranting and raving but he never became aggressive toward Nicole in a physical sense nor did he verbally threaten her.

So what if the IRS was a grudge letter? If Nicole took this a grudge letter, she knew how to get even with him, didn't she? Perhaps that is all, if it was her, that called Sojourn House. I find it interesting that who called that shelter, just happened to be the shelter of where Simpson made a donation to after the 1989 incident. I say she trumped his IRS letter, again if it was her that called. I do believe it would not have been difficult for someone to call the shelter and give enough details to lead someone to believe it very well could have been Nicole calling.

However, Nicole showed no fear in calling the police in the past. She showed no fear of him when she allegedly told him off that night. If all of Nicole's "friends" knew she was being abused, then why didn't any of them help her? Surely these women were rich enough to help Nicole get away from Simpson and help her get established on her own two feet?

If Nicole's friends knew she was being abused, then why did everyone of them support her attempts to get back with him? Why didn't Faye tell or plead with Marcus Allen to protect Nicole from Simpson?

All of Nicole's claims in the diary make no sense that she would write them down and put them in a deposit box unless she was gearing up for a counter attack.

Yes, Simpson did express remorse for his treatment of Nicole. He did make a statement such as this during the Bronco ride. The fact that the DA's never used the Bronco chase is proof that Simpson was expressing grief and remorse over Nicole's death and not because he was the one who killed her.

Simpson and Nicole sought out counselling, and I think Nicole saw 2 or 3 of them, excluding Susan Forward, so where are their comments and reports that Nicole was in fact an abused woman and that OJ Simpson continued to beat her after the 1989 incident? Where is your proof of the abuse continued after that incident?

The 1993 incident goes directly to Simpson's side. He did not lay a hand on her, he did not approach her and he was not drinking and he was not on drugs. The only documented physical encounter between Nicole and OJ were when both were drinking. The same with Denise Brown, her details in the events she says she witnessed were also filled with booze.

Not every one is a happy go lucky drinker. It should be a law that certain people should never drink together, IMO, I think Nicole was one of those people. Simpson being a jerk when drunk only means he is a jerk when he is drunk. IMO.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I am not sure if you know the answer to this. If a shrink thinks that a woman is a dangerous relationship, that the shrink feels that the woman's life is in danger, aren't they obligated to inform the woman that she is in danger, that a letter is written not only to warn the woman but to cover themself from any lawsuit that might be filed against them if they did not warn the woman?

I would think something would be required.

[martin II]

fgump2,

I do believe the diaries were at the very least "enhanced". I question when the diaries were started as well as the full content of them, all of them. His use of foul language is hardly surprising in this day and age, however, there is no proof that he did in fact use this language.

In the tapes that we heard, I do not believe that Simpson called Nicole any foul names. I remember his ranting and raving but he never became aggressive toward Nicole in a physical sense nor did he verbally threaten her.

So what if the IRS was a grudge letter? If Nicole took this a grudge letter, she knew how to get even with him, didn't she? Perhaps that is all, if it was her, that called Sojourn House. I find it interesting that who called that shelter, just happened to be the shelter of where Simpson made a donation to after the 1989 incident. I say she trumped his IRS letter, again if it was her that called. I do believe it would not have been difficult for someone to call the shelter and give enough details to lead someone to believe it very well could have been Nicole calling.

However, Nicole showed no fear in calling the police in the past. She showed no fear of him when she allegedly told him off that night. If all of Nicole's "friends" knew she was being abused, then why didn't any of them help her? Surely these women were rich enough to help Nicole get away from Simpson and help her get established on her own two feet?

If Nicole's friends knew she was being abused, then why did everyone of them support her attempts to get back with him? Why didn't Faye tell or plead with Marcus Allen to protect Nicole from Simpson?

All of Nicole's claims in the diary make no sense that she would write them down and put them in a deposit box unless she was gearing up for a counter attack.

Yes, Simpson did express remorse for his treatment of Nicole. He did make a statement such as this during the Bronco ride. The fact that the DA's never used the Bronco chase is proof that Simpson was expressing grief and remorse over Nicole's death and not because he was the one who killed her.

Simpson and Nicole sought out counselling, and I think Nicole saw 2 or 3 of them, excluding Susan Forward, so where are their comments and reports that Nicole was in fact an abused woman and that OJ Simpson continued to beat her after the 1989 incident? Where is your proof of the abuse continued after that incident?

The 1993 incident goes directly to Simpson's side. He did not lay a hand on her, he did not approach her and he was not drinking and he was not on drugs. The only documented physical encounter between Nicole and OJ were when both were drinking. The same with Denise Brown, her details in the events she says she witnessed were also filled with booze.

Not every one is a happy go lucky drinker. It should be a law that certain people should never drink together, IMO, I think Nicole was one of those people. Simpson being a jerk when drunk only means he is a jerk when he is drunk. IMO.

For some it looks like oj just did much of nothing but hit nicole.Why would she be having so many dinner dates and talking on the phone so much if this was true. it makes little sence.

[martin II]

Do you think the diary entries were made up? Do you think Orenthal said those things? I think he did say those things. He denied those statements in the civil trial, and I think he lied, perjury.

IF two people have been having bitter arguments, and one of the unexpectidly dies, that usually provokes feelings of remorse in the survivor. And yet Orenthal never expressed remorse about his angry behavior.

Most NG (not guilty people) have good memories for the anti-social things that Mark Fuhrman said. They manage to ignore the anti social-things that Orenthal said.

Part of my point was that Orenthals letter to Nicole about the IRS on June 6 wasn't primarily a business letter about taxes; it was a grudge letter.

Nicole request had nothing to do with ojs business. it was personal.

EXactly why do you believe oj should not have given her the response he gaver her which was no.They both were seeong others and had agreed the relationship was over.Why should he have been involved in her illegal scheme to defraud the irs.

[martin II]

fgump2,

I do believe the diaries were at the very least "enhanced". I question when the diaries were started as well as the full content of them, all of them. His use of foul language is hardly surprising in this day and age, however, there is no proof that he did in fact use this language.

In the tapes that we heard, I do not believe that Simpson called Nicole any foul names. I remember his ranting and raving but he never became aggressive toward Nicole in a physical sense nor did he verbally threaten her.

So what if the IRS was a grudge letter? If Nicole took this a grudge letter, she knew how to get even with him, didn't she? Perhaps that is all, if it was her, that called Sojourn House. I find it interesting that who called that shelter, just happened to be the shelter of where Simpson made a donation to after the 1989 incident. I say she trumped his IRS letter, again if it was her that called. I do believe it would not have been difficult for someone to call the shelter and give enough details to lead someone to believe it very well could have been Nicole calling.

However, Nicole showed no fear in calling the police in the past. She showed no fear of him when she allegedly told him off that night. If all of Nicole's "friends" knew she was being abused, then why didn't any of them help her? Surely these women were rich enough to help Nicole get away from Simpson and help her get established on her own two feet?

If Nicole's friends knew she was being abused, then why did everyone of them support her attempts to get back with him? Why didn't Faye tell or plead with Marcus Allen to protect Nicole from Simpson?

All of Nicole's claims in the diary make no sense that she would write them down and put them in a deposit box unless she was gearing up for a counter attack.

Yes, Simpson did express remorse for his treatment of Nicole. He did make a statement such as this during the Bronco ride. The fact that the DA's never used the Bronco chase is proof that Simpson was expressing grief and remorse over Nicole's death and not because he was the one who killed her.

Simpson and Nicole sought out counselling, and I think Nicole saw 2 or 3 of them, excluding Susan Forward, so where are their comments and reports that Nicole was in fact an abused woman and that OJ Simpson continued to beat her after the 1989 incident? Where is your proof of the abuse continued after that incident?

The 1993 incident goes directly to Simpson's side. He did not lay a hand on her, he did not approach her and he was not drinking and he was not on drugs. The only documented physical encounter between Nicole and OJ were when both were drinking. The same with Denise Brown, her details in the events she says she witnessed were also filled with booze.

Not every one is a happy go lucky drinker. It should be a law that certain people should never drink together, IMO, I think Nicole was one of those people. Simpson being a jerk when drunk only means he is a jerk when he is drunk. IMO.

In his book oj talks about nicole telling him that some of her friends were eddging her to make up stuff on him to go back to court to get a larger support payments.She told him she could not do that.But maby she did in the dairies.
i don't think m,any women make a detail diary and lock it away if not for some purpose.

[martin II]

Telling her she was fat and disgusting while she was pregnant was emotional abuse. That's just one example. Nicole stated ONCE that he only hit her one time but she told other people at other times that it was ongoing abuse, she put it in her diary, took photos of the marks and there were witnesses that testified they saw Simpson hit her.

i have seen no proof of these claims. i know that many women are sensitive about their weight when pregnant.

[martin II]

Allow me to correct you, if you will. Ms. Bell did not go anywhere with MF nor did she introduce him to her friend. :)

Furhman and racism
I think we all have a responsibility to speak out against those that show,speak and act in racist ways against any people be they irish, black hispanic,italian or asian. If not, it damages all of society by promoting hate amongst people. If some do not speak out, they are not part of the solution but part of the problem.imo

[weezer]

Furhman and racism
I think we all have a responsibility to speak out against those that show,speak and act in racist ways against any people be they irish, black hispanic,italian or asian. If not, it damages all of society by promoting hate amongst people. If some do not speak out, they are not part of the solution but part of the problem.imo

I'm going to assume that your silence when it came to the rev wright sermons of hatred, j jackson's remarks about the president, and the music industries constant demeaning of women as well as the use of the n-word don't qualify in your view?

[weezer]

i have seen no proof of these claims. i know that many women are sensitive about their weight when pregnant.

Nicole wrote about it in her diary -- are you willing to take orenthal's word as the truth because he wrote it in a for-profit book but you don't believe Nicole's words in a private diary?

[The Boys]

Pardon me for overlooking you last statement, as it implies that "Blacks all over the place" set the standard for English to be used by Caucasians. ;):cool:

Not my problem if you can't see facts. English is a primary language used in America --- didn't realize there's a different english for blacks than there is for whites --- but apparently you think there is. Or that there should be.

Sorry if some black people can't accept that they don't get a free pass.

[The Boys]

In his book oj talks about nicole telling him that some of her friends were eddging her to make up stuff on him to go back to court to get a larger support payments.She told him she could not do that.But maby she did in the dairies.
i don't think m,any women make a detail diary and lock it away if not for some purpose.

It's really common for a woman in therapy who's being abused to be told to start keeping keeping a diary even if they're not married to the guy abusing them or don't have kids. It's for protection and a way to document everything so that if the guy abusing is brought up on charges or something happens that there's a good trail of history to go from.

[The Boys]

Nicole wrote about it in her diary -- are you willing to take orenthal's word as the truth because he wrote it in a for-profit book but you don't believe Nicole's words in a private diary?

No kidding! Everything out of Simpson's mouth is effin gospel truth but any word Nicole wrote in a diary is a lie. WTF.

[The Boys]

I'm going to assume that your silence when it came to the rev wright sermons of hatred, j jackson's remarks about the president, and the music industries constant demeaning of women as well as the use of the n-word don't qualify in your view?

LOL, no s**t huh. C'mon martin ---- tell us, did you protest Jesse Jackson out loud for all the world to hear when he used the N word? We're just waiting to know!:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Not my problem if you can't see facts. English is a primary language used in America --- didn't realize there's a different english for blacks than there is for whites --- but apparently you think there is. Or that there should be.

Sorry if some black people can't accept that they don't get a free pass.

WTH? This was your first statement,"Blacks all over the place use the same language." Your statement implies that it is somehow acceptable for Caucasians to use the word, because "Blacks all over the place" do. I thought it was the other way around as the word was first used by Caucasians some as famous as Samuel Clemens and that Blacks had to be taught the English language, after they were transported to America on slave ships, although they were not allowed to read or write. Therefore, I am of the opinion that "Blacks all over the place", use the language that "Caucasians all over the place" taught them to use. The problem is that MF lied under oath for some reason about his Caucasian use of the word. :)

[weezer]

WTH? This was your first statement,"Blacks all over the place use the same language." Your statement implies that it is somehow acceptable for Caucasians to use the word, because "Blacks all over the place" do. I thought it was the other way around as the word was first used by Caucasians some as famous as Samuel Clemens and that Blacks had to be taught the English language, after they were transported to America on slave ships, although they were not allowed to read or write. Therefore, I am of the opinion that "Blacks all over the place", use the language that "Caucasians all over the place" taught them to use. The problem is that MF lied under oath for some reason about his Caucasian use of the word. :)

so we're all are in agreement that it's okay to use the word? :shrug:

[tv]

i have seen no proof of these claims. i know that many women are sensitive about their weight when pregnant.

Since you're so in tune to what pregnant women are sensitive about then I'm sure you'll agree that it makes them even more sensitve when they're hit and called a fat pig when they're pregnant as Nicole was by her husband. I'm always amazed at what a caring, loving husband he was. Nicole was just ungrateful I guess.

[William Anthony]

LOL, no s**t huh. C'mon martin ---- tell us, did you protest Jesse Jackson out loud for all the world to hear when he used the N word? We're just waiting to know!:rolleyes:

It seems that Caucasians all over the place did for some reason as if the Reverend Jackson's use of the word somehow discriminated against their ability to use it, which I don't believe is the case. Judging from the way America has embraced MF after his use of the word, it would only be equal for America to embrace Reverend Jackson use of the word, which they might do behind closed doors, IMHO. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I think a poster misunderstands. I think, if Caucasians are going to criticize Reverend Jackson for using the word, then they should criticize MF's use, not excuse and embrace MF.

[tv]

WTH? This was your first statement,"Blacks all over the place use the same language." Your statement implies that it is somehow acceptable for Caucasians to use the word, because "Blacks all over the place" do. I thought it was the other way around as the word was first used by Caucasians some as famous as Samuel Clemens and that Blacks had to be taught the English language, after they were transported to America on slave ships, although they were not allowed to read or write. Therefore, I am of the opinion that "Blacks all over the place", use the language that "Caucasians all over the place" taught them to use. The problem is that MF lied under oath for some reason about his Caucasian use of the word. :)

This really has nothing to do with the issue at hand but why do you say black and caucasian? Why not say black and white or caucasian and negro? Just wondering.

[weezer]

It seems that Caucasians all over the place did for some reason as if the Reverend Jackson's use of the word somehow discriminated against their ability to use it, which I don't believe is the case. Judging from the way America has embraced MF after his use of the word, it would only be equal for America to embrace Reverend Jackson use of the word, which they might do behind closed doors, IMHO. :);):cool:

so I"m not sure how this works -- it's okay for blacks to use the word in public but whites can be sneaky and only use it behind closed doors?

I think I'm confused a little as to what exactly is it that you are so sensitive over: the word or the color of the person saying it?

[William Anthony]

No kidding! Everything out of Simpson's mouth is effin gospel truth but any word Nicole wrote in a diary is a lie. WTF.

There is evidence that Simpson did not say the words from his testimony, IIRC, but unfortunately the words used by Ms. NBS are just hearsay statements that lack the requirement of authentication. Her statements and photos that could be authenticated were allowed in, as the rules of evidence permitted. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

In an effort to eliminate the confusion, I am saying that I suspect that some Caucasians behind closed doors demonstrate equality as the embrace Reverend Jackson's use of the word just as they did MF's use of the word but publicly criticize Reverend Jackson's use, while making excuses for MF's use or the fact that MF lied about using the word under oath. ;):):cool:

[William Anthony]

This really has nothing to do with the issue at hand but why do you say black and caucasian? Why not say black and white or caucasian and negro? Just wondering.

I think the proper way to address the races at this current acceptable stage of nomenclatures is by Black and Caucasian. I may be wrong but I think Caucasian was a shorten form for the Caucasoid race.

[martin II]

LOL, no s**t huh. C'mon martin ---- tell us, did you protest Jesse Jackson out loud for all the world to hear when he used the N word? We're just waiting to know!:rolleyes:

i and other friends used our extensive network to say that JJ was wrong for his comments just as others were.There was much talk about this in the black community and Rev Jackson got that message as he did apologize for the comment. I agree with Rev Sharptone effords to educate the teens and the public at large against the use of that word.Which is why i believe eneryone has a responsibility to act against racism and racist comments.Those that believe that there is nothing wrong with racist words and actions do a disservice to the larger community.imo

[William Anthony]

A rather interesting article.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm

[weezer]

i and other friends used our extensive network to say that JJ was wrong for his comments just as others were.There was much talk about this in the black community and Rev Jackson got that message as he did apologize for the comment. I agree with Rev Sharptone effords to educate the teens and the public at large against the use of that word.Which is why i believe eneryone has a responsibility to act against racism and racist comments.Those that believe that there is nothing wrong with racist words and actions do a disservice to the larger community.imo

hmmm -- don't I remember you defending him and wright on this board?

[weezer]

In an effort to eliminate the confusion, I am saying that I suspect that some Caucasians behind closed doors demonstrate equality as the embrace Reverend Jackson's use of the word just as they did MF's use of the word but publicly criticize Reverend Jackson's use, while making excuses for MF's use or the fact that MF lied about using the word under oath. ;):):cool:

I don't know that there is any confusion william -- most of us understand completely what you're saying. We simply object to the hypocrisy. ;)

[William Anthony]

I likewise object to the hypocrisy. If one is publicly going to make excuses for and ignore the fact that MF lied about using the word under oath, then equality demands the same for Reverend Jackson. I am glad that we are in agreement as to the hypocrisy. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I think there may be some misunderstanding as to noting the inequality when it comes to who uses the word and equating it to defending the use of the word.

[weezer]

I likewise object to the hypocrisy. If one is publicly going to make excuses for and ignore the fact that MF lied about using the word under oath, then equality demands the same for Reverend Jackson. I am glad that we are in agreement as to the hypocrisy. :);):cool:

no one has denied that Fuhrman used the word and everyone accepts that he was convicted of perjury. Of course some of us realize that Fuhrman's screenplay was no different than -- oh say -- most of the rap songs. All are offensive to some. Some people can watch a movie, read a book, listen to a song and understand that what we're watching, reading, listening to is entertainment. Now, wright and jackson fall into a whole different category -- unless they're now entertainers. Oh, that's right -- they are. :tongue:

[weezer]

I think there may be some misunderstanding as to noting the inequality when it comes to who uses the word and equating it to defending the use of the word.

nope -- no misunderstanding. hypocrisy at it's best when it comes to the color of the person saying the words.

[martin II]

tv
ps
yes i do approve and support Rev Sharptons,Rev Butts Rev Jacksons Minister Farakhan and others efforts to educate and remove demeaning words directed at women in popular music. i also see a big reduction in this practice by music companies as a result of their efforts. I also know that there are many White people/ groups that are not passive in heir actions agains racist comments and actions by some. But unfortunately there are some that are passive and don't see racist comments as a problem that should concern them.imo

[William Anthony]

This constant hypocrisy is just not tolerable. Why do some act like the only time MF used the word was in the screenplay or that all the incidents in which he spoke the word were part of a role he was playing in the screenplay. This is what I meant about making excuses for his vile, reprehensible and demonic use of the word and that he cowardly lied, IMHO, about his use, whereas the Reverend Jackson and Reverend Wright have not lied about their use. However, MF was embraced by some Americans whereas the Reverends were denounced by some Americans. Have some forgotten that witnesses took the stand, who were not convicted of perjury, and told of MF's vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic use of the word when he was not talking to Ms. LHM?:);):cool:

[The Boys]

i and other friends used our extensive network to say that JJ was wrong for his comments just as others were.There was much talk about this in the black community and Rev Jackson got that message as he did apologize for the comment. I agree with Rev Sharptone effords to educate the teens and the public at large against the use of that word.Which is why i believe eneryone has a responsibility to act against racism and racist comments.Those that believe that there is nothing wrong with racist words and actions do a disservice to the larger community.imo

Don Imus was fired for the racially toned comments he used on his radio show --- even though he apologized. Jesse Jackson advocated his firing. Then he was busted for using the N word and has since apologized so everything is swell with him?

How is that even okay?

[William Anthony]

tv
ps
yes i do approve and support Rev Sharptons,Rev Butts Rev Jacksons Minister Farakhan and others efforts to educate and remove demeaning words directed at women in popular music. i also see a big reduction in this practice by music companies as a result of their efforts. I also know that there are many White people/ groups that are not passive in heir actions agains racist comments and actions by some. But unfortunately there are some that are passive and don't see racist comments as a problem that should concern them.imo

Wasn't there a Caucasian group called "Guns and Roses"?

[William Anthony]

Don Imus was fired for the racially toned comments he used on his radio show --- even though he apologized. Jesse Jackson advocated his firing. Then he was busted for using the N word and has since apologized so everything is swell with him?

How is that even okay?

IIRC, Don Imus, in a manner reminiscent of MF, denied that there was anything racial in his comments. Everything cannot be swell with Reverend Jackson as indicated by the comments made on this forum.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

nope -- no misunderstanding. hypocrisy at it's best when it comes to the color of the person saying the words.

I have decided to momentarily break my rule not to respond directly to your posts as we can agree on this portion of your post, "hypocrisy at it's best when it comes to the color of the person saying the words" as evidenced by America's embracing MF.

[William Anthony]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973934,00.html

"Police and n*****s, that's right, get out of my way"; and "Immigrants and f*****s . . . come to our country and think they'll do as they please/ Like start a mini-Iran, or spread some f ---disease." The record sold 6 million copies.

[The Boys]

From the Complaint against Mark Fuhrman filed in court:

""Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts."

Judge Ouderkirk said to Fuhrman "In the investigation by the state attorney general, they found nothing wrong with your criminal investigation on this case."

At the beginning of his book Fuhrman says "I apologize for the pain I caused with my insensitive words. However, one thing I will not apologize for is my policework on the Simpson case. I did a good job; I did nothing wrong. Yet I was blamed when the case fell apart."

I personally think he shouldn't have accepted the plea deal from the attorney and gone to trial and let the riots be what they would from every idiot with the chip on their shoulder that feel the need for everything to be black v white.

[The Boys]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973934,00.html

"Police and n*****s, that's right, get out of my way"; and "Immigrants and f*****s . . . come to our country and think they'll do as they please/ Like start a mini-Iran, or spread some f ---disease." The record sold 6 million copies.

Love GNR --- they're awesome.

[martin II]

The porblem of the use of the n word and demeaning lyrics about women was a creation of the big music industry companies that decided that that content sold records.Not by individual artist as it is the music companies that dictate content.

[weezer]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973934,00.html

"Police and n*****s, that's right, get out of my way"; and "Immigrants and f*****s . . . come to our country and think they'll do as they please/ Like start a mini-Iran, or spread some f ---disease." The record sold 6 million copies.

:shrug:

[weezer]

I have decided to momentarily break my rule not to respond directly to your posts as we can agree on this portion of your post, "hypocrisy at it's best when it comes to the color of the person saying the words" as evidenced by America's embracing MF.

why in the world would you have a rule not to respond to me directly? :confused:

[William Anthony]

From the Complaint against Mark Fuhrman filed in court:

""Here there is no evidence that defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts."

Judge Ouderkirk said to Fuhrman "In the investigation by the state attorney general, they found nothing wrong with your criminal investigation on this case."

At the beginning of his book Fuhrman says "I apologize for the pain I caused with my insensitive words. However, one thing I will not apologize for is my policework on the Simpson case. I did a good job; I did nothing wrong. Yet I was blamed when the case fell apart."

I personally think he shouldn't have accepted the plea deal from the attorney and gone to trial and let the riots be what they would from every idiot with the chip on their shoulder that feel the need for everything to be black v white.

Please, provide a link to the claim that there would have been a riot, if MF had not accepted the plea.:) The investigation did not say that MF did nothing wrong, only that they could find nothing. :);) We all know that MF will lie under oath and why not in a book he wrote to gain money, because of his role in the trial. :cool:

[William Anthony]

why in the world would you have a rule not to respond to me directly? :confused:

Because of my feelings about some of your posts.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, Guns and Roses preceded Rapp music but Rapp, which has made many Black millionaires, seems to have taken the sole blame, in the minds of some, for those type of lyrics and fail to see the hypocrisy.

[William Anthony]

The porblem of the use of the n word and demeaning lyrics about women was a creation of the big music industry companies that decided that that content sold records.Not by individual artist as it is the music companies that dictate content.

Ditto.

[weezer]

Because of my feelings about some of your posts.

fair enough -- thanks for answering :seeya:

[William Anthony]

fair enough -- thanks for answering :seeya:

I try to oblige whenever possible.

[The Boys]

Please, provide a link to the claim that there would have been a riot, if MF had not accepted the plea.:) The investigation did not say that MF did nothing wrong, only that they could find nothing. :);) We all know that MF will lie under oath and why not in a book he wrote to gain money, because of his role in the trial. :cool:

Where did I say that anyone (other than me writing it) claimed there would have been a riot? Though I guarantee there would have been similar to the RK riots.

Exactly, that they could find nothing. I see the innocent until PROVEN guilty theme of yours goes only so far with whites. Your black folk favoritism shines through and through:cool:

[The Boys]

I'll bet you have every album they made and you and your friends sit around, dressed in white, listening to those albums.

Every album other than "Spaghetti Junction" --- we sometimes wear black too --- you know, just to throw in a little equality and fun so we don't feel so bad about ourselves afterward;)

[martin II]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973934,00.html

"Police and n*****s, that's right, get out of my way"; and "Immigrants and f*****s . . . come to our country and think they'll do as they please/ Like start a mini-Iran, or spread some f ---disease." The record sold 6 million copies.

Guns Roses is not the only group that records that type of music content.
There are many complaints against hip hop but not one peep against G&R which i believe means support for G&R content.
right tv?

[weezer]

Every album other than "Spaghetti Junction" --- we sometimes wear black too --- you know, just to throw in a little equality and fun so we don't feel so bad about ourselves afterward;)

I thought the 'wearing white' comment by william was unacceptable.

[William Anthony]

Where did I say that anyone (other than me writing it) claimed there would have been a riot? Though I guarantee there would have been similar to the RK riots.

Exactly, that they could find nothing. I see the innocent until PROVEN guilty theme of yours goes only so far with whites. Your black folk favoritism shines through and through:cool:

I see that your anti Black sentiments shine brilliantly and permeate most of your posts, and glad to hear you acknowledge that you have no support for you statements on riots, although you guarantee there would have been one (is that wishful thinking on your part).

I see that you misunderstand, as I have repeatedly said the evidence allows me to draw an inference that MF planted evidence in this case. The fact that an investigation was done and nothing was found does not tell me that he did not do anything. Since he was never charged with planting evidence, there was never a question as to his guilt or innocence. Just as Simpson was tried and acquitted and retained the presumption of innocence so does MF. Nothing has stopped some from inferring or drawing conclusions that Simpson is guilty of the murders. However, I have never said that MF planted evidence, i.e. that he is guilty, only that the evidence allows me to draw the inference that he did plant the glove. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I thought the 'wearing white' comment by william was unacceptable.

Because you have decided that something I wrote was unacceptable, allow me to remind you of The Boys posts in which he stated he loved to wear white. It is these types of posts made by you, which seem to be made to only start trouble or to inflame and bait, is why I decided to not to respond to you directly, except, as in this case, when I feel it is absolutely necessary to set the record straight or for other reasons.

[weezer]

guess that means the G's just need to say that the evidence/testimony allows us to draw the inference that orenthal butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

I knew if we kept at it long enough, we'd come to an understanding. I feel so much better now.

[weezer]

Because you have decided that something I wrote was unacceptable, allow me to remind you of The Boys posts in which he stated he loved to wear white. It is these types of posts made by you, which seem to be made to only start trouble or to inflame and bait, is why I decided to not to respond to you directly, except, as in this case, when I feel it is absolutely necessary to set the record straight or for other reasons.

you asking another poster if they and their friends sit around wearing white listening to what you consider offensive music is UNACCEPTABLE. I'm neither trying to inflame and/or bait -- just point out your hypocrisy -- once again.

[martin II]

IIRC, Guns and Roses preceded Rapp music but Rapp, which has made many Black millionaires, seems to have taken the sole blame, in the minds of some, for those type of lyrics and fail to see the hypocrisy.

White record company executives have made many more millions than black artist on hip hop.That is for sure.

Rap was attacked as black ghetto music and looked down on until millions of white teenagers adopted it and started wearing baggy pants and living the hip hop life style following blacks styles.Now it is accepted by black and white
music,tv, fashion industries and has taken over what was known as heavy metal and white rock.

[William Anthony]

Every album other than "Spaghetti Junction" --- we sometimes wear black too --- you know, just to throw in a little equality and fun so we don't feel so bad about ourselves afterward;)

I truly believe that any efforts in acquiring equality and elevating a feeling of self respect is time well spent. Perhaps, you should consider wearing black more often. :):cool:

[The Boys]

I truly believe that any efforts in acquiring equality and elevating a feeling of self respect is time well spent. Perhaps, you should consider wearing black more often. :):cool:

I would but I find that it washes out my pretty white complexion too much for my liking.

[martin II]

I see that your anti Black sentiments shine brilliantly and permeate most of your posts, and glad to hear you acknowledge that you have no support for you statements on riots, although you guarantee there would have been one (is that wishful thinking on your part).

I see that you misunderstand, as I have repeatedly said the evidence allows me to draw an inference that MF planted evidence in this case. The fact that an investigation was done and nothing was found does not tell me that he did not do anything. Since he was never charged with planting evidence, there was never a question as to his guilt or innocence. Just as Simpson was tried and acquitted and retained the presumption of innocence so does MF. Nothing has stopped some from inferring or drawing conclusions that Simpson is guilty of the murders. However, I have never said that MF planted evidence, i.e. that he is guilty, only that the evidence allows me to draw the inference that he did plant the glove. :);):cool:


Police Watch and the Feds found pleantY on furhman but the statue had run out so they were not able to charge him.The police watch investigator stated that he had more claims against furhman that any other officer since the investigator was in charge of investigating. i posted this report a week or so ago but sure some just ignored it or pretended they did not read it.

[William Anthony]

you asking another poster if they and their friends sit around wearing white listening to what you consider offensive music is UNACCEPTABLE. I'm neither trying to inflame and/or bait -- just point out your hypocrisy -- once again.

Yes, that is what I asked a poster and that poster said that they do but sometimes wear black. The poster is able to say what he wears and what he likes as he told me he liked GNR. The fact that I find those lyrics unacceptable does not give me the right to dictate what others can listen to or say or write (I hope you understand). There is a Constitutional right to freedom of association, choice and speech. My questions were valid in questions asked in response to the poster's posts. I think it is hypocritical for you to try to point out my alleged hypocrisy without giving thought to the entire conversation that have occurred between the poster and me.

[William Anthony]

I would but I find that it washes out my pretty white complexion too much for my liking.

I always thought that black shows up white.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Police Watch and the Feds found pleantY on furhman but the statue had run out so they were not able to charge him.The police watch investigator stated that he had more claims against furhman that any other officer since the investigator was in charge of investigating. i posted this report a week or so ago but sure some just ignored it or pretended they did not read it.

:read:, post, :read:, post. :)

[martin II]

Because of my feelings about some of your posts.

Ditto me on that as i do the same for the same reasons. i have decided not to respond to baiting, mean and nasty post.

[William Anthony]

White record company executives have made many more millions than black artist on hip hop.That is for sure.

Rap was attacked as black ghetto music and looked down on until millions of white teenagers adopted it and started wearing baggy pants and living the hip hop life style following blacks styles.Now it is accepted by black and white
music,tv, fashion industries and has taken over what was known as heavy metal and white rock.

True dat.

[weezer]

Yes, that is what I asked a poster and that poster said that they do but sometimes wear black. The poster is able to say what he wears and what he likes as he told me he liked GNR. The fact that I find those lyrics unacceptable does not give me the right to dictate what others can listen to or say or write (I hope you understand). There is a Constitutional right to freedom of association, choice and speech. My questions were valid in questions asked in response to the poster's posts. I think it is hypocritical for you to try to point out my alleged hypocrisy without giving thought to the entire conversation that have occurred between the poster and me.

WTF? riiiiight ;)

oh wait, that's the same right you gave to Fuhrman, right? ;)

[William Anthony]

Ditto me on that as i do the same for the same reasons. i have decided not to respond to baiting, mean and nasty post.

Excellent decision, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

WTF? riiiiight ;)

oh wait, that's the same right you gave to Fuhrman, right? ;)

Yes, you are right and there are laws against lying under oath and planting evidence by LE members.:);):cool:

[weezer]

Bun B On Hip-Hop's Downfall, "Only 6 People Are Making Money Off Rap Music"
Written by Cyrus Langhorne

Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:00:00

UGK's Bun B recently spoke on the status of hip-hop in today's music sales slump and which Texas emcee could help ignite his homestate's popularity.

While not naming anyone specific, Bun claimed only a select few rappers were still profiting from hip-hop.

"I wonder if people who ask Southern artists [about their past streaks also] ask West coast artists or Midwest artists or New York artists that, because all those regions are falling off," Bun said in an interview. "Hip-Hop, in general, doesn't have the demand power it used to in any region. We had a good run in Houston, but every region's in trouble. There are really only six people making money off rap music. Everybody knows that...I definitely think that Z-Ro is on the brink of becoming a national superstar. It's pretty much up to him to decide whether he goes as far as he wants to go. The only thing holding Z-Ro back is Z-Ro." (Vibe)

Former Murder Inc. frontman Ja Rule also said hip-hop was in a state of emergency late last month.

"We fighting against other genres," Rule declared in an interview. "We fightin' against motherf*ckin' rock. We fightin' against pop. We fightin' against these other genres of music. We need to be together as a whole and not separating ourselves between West and East and South. I think New York is making a strong comeback right now. I think we doin' our thing, we got Maino, we got Red Cafe. I think New York is making a surgence. I got my acts outta New York, I'm coming with a crazy album right now. But you know as a whole, it's not about New York...it's about hip-hop. We all in this together. So when I think about it, that's really my feelings on the situation." (57th Ave)

Jadakiss has said the quality of music from New York was previously on the decline up until recently.

"New York took a hit when everybody started getting money," Kiss said in an interview. "Everybody was doing alright in record sales. Everybody had some success but then the ego started playing a part. From then, nobody wanted to do songs with each other. N*ggas were on some, 'I'm not f*cking with that n*gga. I'm not doing that!' That hurt everybody in a whole and everybody stopped dropping albums. Then wherever, the South, the West came, linked up, and collected that money for certain amount of years. I just feel like this is going to give everybody some sense of inspiration to come. you got Fab[olous] coming. You got more north artists that's gon' come back. you know Red [Cafe] is doing his thing. Maino is doing his thing. This gon' give everybody motivation to put music out, so then, nobody has to sit down and complain." (Hip Hop Game)

Rap mogul Irv Gotti recently blamed the shady dealings of the music industry with their alleged reliance on what's popular at the moment as contributing to hip-hop's unstable status. . ."

there was more to this article which I did not post -- suffice it to say it was just more trash talk.

[William Anthony]

If Rapp music makes a demise as did GNR many should be happy.

[martin II]

Yes, that is what I asked a poster and that poster said that they do but sometimes wear black. The poster is able to say what he wears and what he likes as he told me he liked GNR. The fact that I find those lyrics unacceptable does not give me the right to dictate what others can listen to or say or write (I hope you understand). There is a Constitutional right to freedom of association, choice and speech. My questions were valid in questions asked in response to the poster's posts. I think it is hypocritical for you to try to point out my alleged hypocrisy without giving thought to the entire conversation that have occurred between the poster and me.

Well that poster said he likes to wear white. Now this person is making a issue out of it with you?/ nonsense.

[weezer]

Yes, you are right and there are laws against lying under oath and planting evidence by LE members.:);):cool:

william, are you saying LE planted evidence in the criminal case?

[martin II]

If Rapp music makes a demise as did GNR many should be happy.

G&R music is dead.

[William Anthony]

Rap mogul Irv Gotti recently blamed the shady dealings of the music industry with their alleged reliance on what's popular at the moment as contributing to hip-hop's unstable status. . ."

I wonder if the number of entrepreneurial millionaires had anything to do with this.

[William Anthony]

"Yes, you are right and there are laws against lying under oath and planting evidence by LE members.'

Does anyone see the words "in this case" in my post? I will say that there was evidence presented in the case which permitted me to infer that LE planted evidence in the Simpson murder trial.

[William Anthony]

G&R music is dead.

I have noticed that I have had headaches less frequently. :)

[William Anthony]

Well that poster said he likes to wear white. Now this person is making a issue out of it with you?/ nonsense.

Some found fault with Jesus Christ, who, IMHO, is our Lord and Savior.:shrug:

[tv]

Guns Roses is not the only group that records that type of music content.
There are many complaints against hip hop but not one peep against G&R which i believe means support for G&R content.
right tv?

I don't know why you're including me in this conversation as I haven't been on the board for a couple of hours -- I don't know what complaints have been made against Guns N Roses. One of my sons listened to them when he was younger but I decided they were inappropriate for someone his age so I didn't buy him another tape or CD after the first one. I don't recall those lyrics I just thought they weren't the kind of guys I wanted my child to look up to as role models. I have a nephew that is a local rapper. The language he uses in his music would burn the ears off of a donkey. Sweet kid, though.

[William Anthony]

I don't know why you're including me in this conversation as I haven't been on the board for a couple of hours -- I don't know what complaints have been made against Guns N Roses. One of my sons listened to them when he was younger but I decided they were inappropriate for someone his age so I didn't buy him another tape or CD after the first one. I don't recall those lyrics I just thought they weren't the kind of guys I wanted my child to look up to as role models. I have a nephew that is a local rapper. The language he uses in his music would burn the ears off of a donkey. Sweet kid, though.

Let's not awaken the sleeping tigress. :)

[martin II]

I don't know why you're including me in this conversation as I haven't been on the board for a couple of hours -- I don't know what complaints have been made against Guns N Roses. One of my sons listened to them when he was younger but I decided they were inappropriate for someone his age so I didn't buy him another tape or CD after the first one. I don't recall those lyrics I just thought they weren't the kind of guys I wanted my child to look up to as role models. I have a nephew that is a local rapper. The language he uses in his music would burn the ears off of a donkey. Sweet kid, though.

That last line is a killer. very funny hahaha