Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

if you present solely that line, sure it sounds racist.

but bugliosi uttered that within the CONTEXT of how he described oj's non-interest in the black community so within that context that line isn't crude or racist or whatsoever.

Thank you, hellraiser. I wish people would take the time to read the comment in context. No one comments on what Jim Brown and other black community activists had to say about Simpson.

[hellraiser]

it's misleading to even THINK of racism in this case-the murders of nicole simpson and ron goldman. i don't get it how someone could bring that issue up again.

[GreenIce]

I see you are still making a effort to drag GI into a dissagreement you have with me.

Martin,

I don't think TV is trying to do that, she is processing your words into her lexicon and it isn't work for her:)

[tv]

it's misleading to even THINK of racism in this case-the murders of nicole simpson and ron goldman. i don't get it how someone could bring that issue up again.

It keeps being brought up because without the LAPD conspiring to frame a black celebrity there is nothing but the mountain of evidence that shows OJ Simpson is guilty.

[tv]

Martin,

I don't think TV is trying to do that, she is processing your words into her lexicon and it isn't work for her:)

You're the one that pointed out martin's use of IF. Please, you two leave me out of your twisted reasoning and explanations. I'm sorry I mentioned it.

[hellraiser]

you're welcome, tv!

in my opinion the only guy that provided the only "other" story of how it could've happened, is bill dear. not because he is right, but because he just made a thorough investigation that is of course free to interpretation.

[tv]

I see you are still making a effort to drag GI into a dissagreement you have with me.

Stop with the nonsense, martin. I don't even know what disagreement you're referencing.

[martin II]

TV,

IMO, that was not what Martin met. Every vote counts because that is how we determine the victor in our elections. Our votes did "not count" in a victory for Senator McCain. However, it is possible to win the office of President but lose the popular vote because of the Electricol (sp?) College.

My quote:
"One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that."

Your Response:
Since when is stating the truth disgusting?


TV,

Do you truly not understand what a racist comment that VB made? I asked you to explain what you thought VB meant by these comments. It appears to me that your response is in full support of VB's comments and I do think that it makes it very easy for someone to believe that if you support this comment, you can be very easily mistaken for a racist.

I don't get the vibe that you are, but some of your comments can very taken that you are.

Our country was founded on a dream and I believe in that dream. IMO, it appears to me that VB feels that only white people are entitled to this dream. White people are the only people who can dream of bigger and better life then the one in which were born into. That only white people have right to fulfill those dreams and have permission to move into the better the homes or mansions and that the only white people have the right to pick the color and creed of their spouses as well as the color of their friends.

What about all the actors---are they all suppose to move only up the road of their parents' home? Not move out of state. Don't spend the money they have earned? Is it only white people who have this luxury?

IMO, VB is saying that the "American Dream" is nothing more then a "White's Only" club.

Does VB and every rich and famous white person need a map to go back to their 'hoods? Or is only black people?

One more thing, in MF's book, I said that I thought it was filled with subtle racist comments, you said you read the same book and didn't find that. I have you an example of what I meant. When MF said that the black jurors didn't care that he beat his white wife. You had no response to that, why?

Either MF is saying that the black jurors would have cared if he beat his black wife or that white people could careless if black husband beats his black wife. How many times did you here the comments had Simpson killed his black wife, it would not have gotten this much press and attention and the country would not have followed this case like it did.


i am sure tv understood that my comment meant that those that voted republican did not help the republican candidate WIN the election as that is what my comment said.HER back door efforts to twist it and involve you is just another attempt to pit you against me.Thanks for setting her straight on this issue.:beer::beer::beer::patriot:

[hellraiser]

It keeps being brought up because without the LAPD conspiring to frame a black celebrity there is nothing but the mountain of evidence that shows OJ Simpson is guilty.

hmm... not even thor's hammer could crush the fact that oj got his finger cut the very exact same time a double-knife-murder was committed.

[martin II]

You're the one that pointed out martin's use of IF. Please, you two leave me out of your twisted reasoning and explanations. I'm sorry I mentioned it.

Then there is no reason to mention it again.
thanks

[tv]

you're welcome, tv!

in my opinion the only guy that provided the only "other" story of how it could've happened, is bill dear. not because he is right, but because he just made a thorough investigation that is of course free to interpretation.

Even though I don't agree with the interpretations of Dear, Wagner or Walraven at least they put a lot of work into investigating the facts of the case. A lot of the photos and facts on Walraven's site are still helpful to me on a daily basis.

[martin II]

you're welcome, tv!

in my opinion the only guy that provided the only "other" story of how it could've happened, is bill dear. not because he is right, but because he just made a thorough investigation that is of course free to interpretation.

I read MR Dears book and respect his investigastion although there were some issues he did not explain enough for me.Then there was Wagner.

[tv]

i am sure tv understood that my comment meant that those that voted republican did not help the republican candidate WIN the election as that is what my comment said.HER back door efforts to twist it and involve you is just another attempt to pit you against me.Thanks for setting her straight on this issue.:beer::beer::beer::patriot:

No, tv doesn't understand anything about you except you don't like it when GI and I are getting along. You liked it much better when you could agree with her that I'm a horrible racist. Your opinion of me means less than nothing. :seeya:

[tv]

hmm... not even thor's hammer could crush the fact that oj got his finger cut the very exact same time a double-knife-murder was committed.

Agreed. I don't believe in coincidences that big.

[GreenIce]

if you present solely that line, sure it sounds racist.

but bugliosi uttered that within the CONTEXT of how he described oj's non-interest in the black community so within that context that line isn't crude or racist or whatsoever.

Hellraiser,

What right did VB or anyone else have to make those comments about Simpson's interest or not interest in the black community? I will be fair in saying that black people also made comments negative comments about this, but I would ask them the same question, what right do have to make these comments?

What is the proof that Simpson turned his back on his community? What about his children? He has two black children and he has two bi-racial children, was he only support to black chidren charities? Simpson supported both causes. When he participated in a golf tournament that was for the "Sickel (sp?) Cell Foundation" the press went crazy about this, until they found out that Simpson has supported this charity for years.

Should Mr. Simpson or any other celebrity beat their own chest on how many charities they support and that they only support black kids? Isn't it possible that Mr. Simpson, like many other celebrites do support charities but they do not want it made public?

VB's comments were racist and they were rude. He had no right to make that comment because he is not "God of the Communities". He doesn't even know Mr. Simpson and to make those comments.

And again, what did Mr. Simpson's support or lack of support of the black community have anything to do with the murders?

IMO, VB is making it clear, that this should have been considered evidence that should have been presented in front of the jury. He wanted this evidence to be taken into the jury room and he wanted the jury to consider this when making their verdict.

Again, what did this have to do with the murders?

[martin II]

if you present solely that line, sure it sounds racist.

but bugliosi uttered that within the CONTEXT of how he described oj's non-interest in the black community so within that context that line isn't crude or racist or whatsoever.

OJ did have 2-3 close friends in Brentwood that were white and the media focused on them. All of his black ex football friends were kinda pushed to the side or ran for the hills because of how it was not acceptablle for them to support oj. so i am not sure it is fair to say he had no black friends.not saying that you have said that.imo

[GreenIce]

You're the one that pointed out martin's use of IF. Please, you two leave me out of your twisted reasoning and explanations. I'm sorry I mentioned it.

TV,

I understand what Martin was saying saying about "If" and the vote not counting. I do believe you interpeted it differently. That is not a crime and I don't think you meant anything by it.

That is why we are still here after all these years.

Recently, I have come to understand to the true value and meaning of communication. I have been having some real issues with my son to the point where I thought I gave birth to twins and that for some reason I never realized I had two children until he turned 16. It would get to the point where I would just look at him and say I don't know who you are. It finally dawned on me that communication is so important and that in order to communicate, you need to understand each other's lexicon. I would say one thing, he would totally get it wrong and he would say something and I would just explode!

TV, I don't think you a racist, I never did--even when I took the shots at you, I never felt you were. I see a lot frustration in talking about this issue, on both sides.

[martin II]

Even though I don't agree with the interpretations of Dear, Wagner or Walraven at least they put a lot of work into investigating the facts of the case. A lot of the photos and facts on Walraven's site are still helpful to me on a daily basis.

If the prosecution had come even close to doing the detail investigations of Dear and Wagner all of us would have more valid information to consider.

[GreenIce]

I've never seen anyone misquote and slant the facts of the case like you do. :shrug:

TV,

What facts did I slant?

Did MF write in his book that the black juors did not care that that Simpson beat his white wife?

[GreenIce]

OJ did have 2-3 close friends in Brentwood that were white and the media focused on them. All of his black ex football friends were kinda pushed to the side or ran for the hills because of how it was not acceptablle for them to support oj. so i am not sure it is fair to say he had no black friends.not saying that you have said that.imo

Martin,

What I find interesting is that fgump has made comments about Simpson not receiving an out pouring of support from his former teammates, etc.

Yet, MF was dropped by an agency that was put in place to help police officers who get in trouble with the law. I can't remember what it is called. He was upset that he paid in more dues then what he felt his defense would have cost and he wasn't happen his lawyer wouldn't take case his pro bono.

[martin II]

if you present solely that line, sure it sounds racist.

but bugliosi uttered that within the CONTEXT of how he described oj's non-interest in the black community so within that context that line isn't crude or racist or whatsoever.

What does VB opinion of ojs non connection to the black community have to do with prooof of who killed Ron and Nicole. The trial was about murders.
From the reaction of the black community during and after the trial oj was never too far from them it seems.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

What I find interesting is that fgump has made comments about Simpson not receiving an out pouring of support from his former teammates, etc.

Yet, MF was dropped by an agency that was put in place to help police officers who get in trouble with the law. I can't remember what it is called. He was upset that he paid in more dues then what he felt his defense would have cost and he wasn't happen his lawyer wouldn't take case his pro bono.

I remember MF being dropped by that group that usually give free legal advice
to cops in trouble. I am not sure if it was the lapd union or not but it is strange that they must have had information about his case that caused them to turn him down.I think they support most cops.I guess his lawyers understood his history and the problems he presented and did not want to work on his case without money.

[martin II]

Martin,

What I find interesting is that fgump has made comments about Simpson not receiving an out pouring of support from his former teammates, etc.

Yet, MF was dropped by an agency that was put in place to help police officers who get in trouble with the law. I can't remember what it is called. He was upset that he paid in more dues then what he felt his defense would have cost and he wasn't happen his lawyer wouldn't take case his pro bono.

i think oj did receive support from football players that played with him just not publically because of the negative press some that did received.The media did not want to hear any support of oj.

[tv]

If the prosecution had come even close to doing the detail investigations of Dear and Wagner all of us would have more valid information to consider.

Keep telling yourself that.

[martin II]

Thank you, hellraiser. I wish people would take the time to read the comment in context. No one comments on what Jim Brown and other black community activists had to say about Simpson.

Jim Brown dissagreement with oj was based on oj not doing what Jim wanted him to do for jims gang project in la and football records and started long before the trial. With Jim it is his way or get attacked.OJ was not the first football player that jim dissagreed with.Most blacks that followed these two understood this.

[martin II]

Keep telling yourself that.

i will as i think that the details are always important.

[tv]

Jim Brown dissagreement with oj was based on oj not doing what Jim wanted him to do for jims gang project in la and football records and started long before the trial. With Jim it is his way or get attacked.OJ was not the first football player that jim dissagreed with.Most blacks that followed these two understood this.

I don't know about any disagreement. I only know what Jim Brown said about OJ Simpson not responding to requests for contributions to the community. Whatever else you're referring to seems unrelated to the subject at hand.

[tv]

TV,

What facts did I slant?

Did MF write in his book that the black juors did not care that that Simpson beat his white wife?

I believe you said you recently read the book so you can answer your own question. :shrug:

[tv]

What does VB opinion of ojs non connection to the black community have to do with prooof of who killed Ron and Nicole. The trial was about murders.
From the reaction of the black community during and after the trial oj was never too far from them it seems.imo

It has to do with the loyalty the jury felt toward Simpson and the fact that Johnnie held him up as an example to the jury for police mistreatment of blacks.

[martin II]

I don't know about any disagreement. I only know what Jim Brown said about OJ Simpson not responding to requests for contributions to the community. Whatever else you're referring to seems unrelated to the subject at hand.

Jim was wrong when he said oj never contributed to black groups.He was right when he said oj did not contribute to HIS black group. Jim relationship with oj is related to the discussion. you made it so in your post. oj was not the first black celebrity that Jim has attacked for a lack of support to his causes.imo

[Hipcheck]

i think oj did receive support from football players that played with him just not publically because of the negative press some that did received.The media did not want to hear any support of oj.

What are you trying to say here?

You said you think O.J. received support from former football plays but you have absolutely NO proof of that.

Why do you THINK he had support from these former football player?

[weezer]

"The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | June 21, 1994
LOS ANGELES -- Former star running back Jim Brown said yesterday that O. J. Simpson, his successor as a legendary ball carrier, was plagued by a cocaine problem that may be linked to the crimes.

"Of course it's known that the Juice dealt with cocaine," Brown said yesterday in an interview with ABC-TV's "Good Morning America".

May 31, 1996

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) -- Football star Marcus Allen told lawyers Friday that O.J. Simpson called him from jail and asked him to lie about Allen's relationship with Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson."

[martin II]

It has to do with the loyalty the jury felt toward Simpson and the fact that Johnnie held him up as an example to the jury for police mistreatment of blacks.

VB comment about oj and the black community had absolutely nothing to do with who killed nicole and ron.

[tv]

Jim was wrong when he said oj never contributed to black groups.He was right when he said oj did not contribute to HIS black group. Jim relationship with oj is related to the discussion. you made it so in your post. oj was not the first black celebrity that Jim has attacked for a lack of support to his causes.imo
It seemed to be the consensus of black community leaders that Simpson was not a contributor and so they stopped asking. I don't care who else Jim Brown has 'attacked'. This is about OJ Simpson.

[tv]

VB comment about oj and the black community had absolutely nothing to do with who killed nicole and ron.

You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't read Mr. Bugliosi's book and you used to have him mixed up with Dominick Dunne. You're really not in a position to credibly judge his comment.

[tv]

"The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | June 21, 1994
LOS ANGELES -- Former star running back Jim Brown said yesterday that O. J. Simpson, his successor as a legendary ball carrier, was plagued by a cocaine problem that may be linked to the crimes.

"Of course it's known that the Juice dealt with cocaine," Brown said yesterday in an interview with ABC-TV's "Good Morning America".

May 31, 1996

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) -- Football star Marcus Allen told lawyers Friday that O.J. Simpson called him from jail and asked him to lie about Allen's relationship with Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson."

Like martin has said before -- it's not an attack when it's the truth.

[martin II]

What are you trying to say here?

You said you think O.J. received support from former football plays but you have absolutely NO proof of that.

Why do you THINK he had support from these former football player?

I am saying that from some comments i have read during the trial some players felt that he was not guilty and gave him their moral support privately.

You don't have any proof that they didn't.

I know that oj had many close friends during and after his career in football and think that is what friends do for friends, Give moral support when it is needed.
imo

[tv]

I am saying that from some comments i have read during the trial some players felt that he was not guilty and gave him their moral support privately.

You don't have any proof that they didn't.

I know that oj had many close friends during and after his career in football and think that is what friends do for friends, Give moral support when it is needed.
imo

You're a member of the public not OJ Simpson's inner circle so how could you know what was said privately and not made public?

[martin II]

You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't read Mr. Bugliosi's book and you used to have him mixed up with Dominick Dunne. You're really not in a position to credibly judge his comment.

i judge his comment as posted above here.If you are suggesting that this comment was not his, then that is another issue.

[martin II]

Like martin has said before -- it's not an attack when it's the truth.

When Jim tossed that woman from the balcony of his apartment some said he was high.

[tv]

When Jim tossed that woman from the balcony of his apartment some said he was high.

Maybe he was but that doesn't mean he's not telling the truth about OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

It seemed to be the consensus of black community leaders that Simpson was not a contributor and so they stopped asking. I don't care who else Jim Brown has 'attacked'. This is about OJ Simpson.

So because you believe oj did not contribute to the black community this is proof for you that he killed Nicole and Ron.

[martin II]

Maybe he was but that doesn't mean he's not telling the truth about OJ Simpson.

It is generally believed that oj had used cocain and it is also generally believed that others in his Brentwood friendship group did the same.Remenber Fays claims.IMO

[tv]

So because you believe oj did not contribute to the black community this is proof for you that he killed Nicole and Ron.

If you want the answer to that scroll back a few posts and read what I said about it. I'm not in the mood to be jerked around because you aren't paying attention.

[tv]

It is generally believed that oj had used cocain and it is also generally believed that others in his Brentwood friendship group did the same.Remenber Fays claims.IMO

No surprise there. Most of us have known this from the beginning.

[martin II]

It seemed to be the consensus of black community leaders that Simpson was not a contributor and so they stopped asking. I don't care who else Jim Brown has 'attacked'. This is about OJ Simpson.

I think it may be more accurate to say that is your consencus of what you think the black community felt and did unless you had some direct connections or envolvement with the black community that would allow you to know this as fact.imo

[martin II]

If you want the answer to that scroll back a few posts and read what I said about it. I'm not in the mood to be jerked around because you aren't paying attention.

What you may have said about it does not change his comments.Is that correct?

[weezer]

When Jim tossed that woman from the balcony of his apartment some said he was high.

the parallel to the simpson case would be that you believe orenthal was high when he butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown since there were drugs found in HIS system. :eek:

[weezer]

I think it may be more accurate to say that is your consencus of what you think the black community felt and did unless you had some direct connections or envolvement with the black community that would allow you to know this as fact.imo

gosh -- we didn't have to have any 'envolvement' with the black community to understand what the criminal jury said: we take care of our own. :shrug:

[tv]

What you may have said about it does not change his comments.Is that correct?

I don't know what you're getting at or why you're trying to get there but it's getting too far off-track for me.

[weezer]

I am saying that from some comments i have read during the trial some players felt that he was not guilty and gave him their moral support privately.

You don't have any proof that they didn't.

I know that oj had many close friends during and after his career in football and think that is what friends do for friends, Give moral support when it is needed.
imo

You are the one that said orenthal had support from players and when you can't produce any names of the supporters, you post like a child: well, well, you don't have any proof that they didn't. :punch:

[tv]

I think it may be more accurate to say that is your consencus of what you think the black community felt and did unless you had some direct connections or envolvement with the black community that would allow you to know this as fact.imo

My opinion is based on direct quotes from black community leaders. They didn't seem to think your guy walks on water.

[martin II]

I don't know what you're getting at or why you're trying to get there but it's getting too far off-track for me.

VB made a comment about oj not knowing how to find the black community.I think his comment was made to inject race into the issue or to make some nonsense negative comment about oj and the black community as if that had something to do with who killed nicole or the trial.I agree with GIS comments
about what VB said.

I have had fun playing around with you for a while on these issues but now must do some work. see you later or tomorrow.imo:cool:

[tv]

VB made a comment about oj not knowing how to find the black community.I think his comment was made to inject race into the issue or to make some nonsense negative comment about oj and the black community as if that had something to do with who killed nicole or the trial.I agree with GIS comments
about what VB said.

I have had fun playing around with you for a while on these issues but now must do some work. see you later or tomorrow.imo:cool:

I quit letting you jerk me around long ago. If you can't get off your can and read the material you're commenting on or at least put it in context then your comments are just taking up space. :seeya:

[tv]

You are the one that said orenthal had support from players and when you can't produce any names of the supporters, you post like a child: well, well, you don't have any proof that they didn't. :punch:

I kind of like the comment 'I'm not black, I'm OJ'. If that's not trying to distance himself from the black community I don't know what is. :shrug:

[weezer]

I kind of like the comment 'I'm not black, I'm OJ'. If that's not trying to distance himself from the black community I don't know what is. :shrug:

orenthal's 'circle' of friends were all white business men. :shrug:

[tv]

orenthal's 'circle' of friends were all white business men. :shrug:

Yep, of the 15 best friends he named in his suicide note, they were all white wealthy men except for AC Cowlings. You'd think he'd name his children by name in his final goodbye -- nope!

[hellraiser]

Hellraiser,

What right did VB or anyone else have to make those comments about Simpson's interest or not interest in the black community? I will be fair in saying that black people also made comments negative comments about this, but I would ask them the same question, what right do have to make these comments?

What is the proof that Simpson turned his back on his community? What about his children? He has two black children and he has two bi-racial children, was he only support to black chidren charities? Simpson supported both causes. When he participated in a golf tournament that was for the "Sickel (sp?) Cell Foundation" the press went crazy about this, until they found out that Simpson has supported this charity for years.

Should Mr. Simpson or any other celebrity beat their own chest on how many charities they support and that they only support black kids? Isn't it possible that Mr. Simpson, like many other celebrites do support charities but they do not want it made public?

VB's comments were racist and they were rude. He had no right to make that comment because he is not "God of the Communities". He doesn't even know Mr. Simpson and to make those comments.

And again, what did Mr. Simpson's support or lack of support of the black community have anything to do with the murders?

IMO, VB is making it clear, that this should have been considered evidence that should have been presented in front of the jury. He wanted this evidence to be taken into the jury room and he wanted the jury to consider this when making their verdict.

Again, what did this have to do with the murders?

"And again, what did Mr. Simpson's support or lack of support of the black community have anything to do with the murders?"

very true.

please don't get me all wrong- i don't wanna be part of a racial discussion. except for the line "oj turned his back on the black community years ago" from VB i am not entitled to say ANYTHING because i don't know nothing when it comes to oj's association with other black people.

i just wanted to point out that vincent bugliosi is NOT a racist in any kind.
that is the reason i made the very first comment. to clear that.

greetings from graz,

[weezer]

"And again, what did Mr. Simpson's support or lack of support of the black community have anything to do with the murders?"

very true.

please don't get me all wrong- i don't wanna be part of a racial discussion. except for the line "oj turned his back on the black community years ago" from VB i am not entitled to say ANYTHING because i don't know nothing when it comes to oj's association with other black people.

i just wanted to point out that vincent bugliosi is NOT a racist in any kind.
that is the reason i made the very first comment. to clear that.

greetings from graz,

LOL -- you will learn that for the NG's on this board, EVERYTHING is about race. :eek:

[tv]

LOL -- you will learn that for the NG's on this board, EVERYTHING is about race. :eek:You can say that again, sister. :beer:

[tv]

Hellraiser,

What right did VB or anyone else have to make those comments about Simpson's interest or not interest in the black community? I will be fair in saying that black people also made comments negative comments about this, but I would ask them the same question, what right do have to make these comments?

What is the proof that Simpson turned his back on his community? What about his children? He has two black children and he has two bi-racial children, was he only support to black chidren charities? Simpson supported both causes. When he participated in a golf tournament that was for the "Sickel (sp?) Cell Foundation" the press went crazy about this, until they found out that Simpson has supported this charity for years.

Should Mr. Simpson or any other celebrity beat their own chest on how many charities they support and that they only support black kids? Isn't it possible that Mr. Simpson, like many other celebrites do support charities but they do not want it made public?

VB's comments were racist and they were rude. He had no right to make that comment because he is not "God of the Communities". He doesn't even know Mr. Simpson and to make those comments.

And again, what did Mr. Simpson's support or lack of support of the black community have anything to do with the murders?

IMO, VB is making it clear, that this should have been considered evidence that should have been presented in front of the jury. He wanted this evidence to be taken into the jury room and he wanted the jury to consider this when making their verdict.

Again, what did this have to do with the murders?


When you've read Bugliosi's book or at least the chapter that this quote is contained in (which was 'he'd need a roadmap to get back to the hood') then your outrage can be taken seriously. Until then, pffft! :punch:

[weezer]

I should have said welcome to the board and didn't so I'll say it now: Welcome to the board. Hope you stick around.

[tv]

I should have said welcome to the board and didn't so I'll say it now: Welcome to the board. Hope you stick around.

Oops! Me too -- welcome hellraiser. :)

[weezer]

speaking of orenthal supporters, anyone know where/how ac is? last I saw of him was outside a restaurant and he did not (no way) want to talk about orenthal.

[tv]

speaking of orenthal supporters, anyone know where/how ac is? last I saw of him was outside a restaurant and he did not (no way) want to talk about orenthal.

The only thing I know about him is that he's a 2009 USC Hall of Famer. I think he's keeping a low profile. I can't say I blame him. :cool:

[weezer]

The only thing I know about him is that he's a 2009 USC Hall of Famer. I think he's keeping a low profile. I can't say I blame him. :cool:

sounds like USC doesn't care who they put in their hall of fame! :punch:

wonder if he has the same kind of pension as orenthal or does he have to work for a living. . . .

[tv]

sounds like USC doesn't care who they put in their hall of fame! :punch:

wonder if he has the same kind of pension as orenthal or does he have to work for a living. . . .

Wasn't he the Mezzaluna owner's chaffeur at one time?

[weezer]

Wasn't he the Mezzaluna owner's chaffeur at one time?

hmmm -- I don't know about that one. I do know that he was orenthal's private 'I've beat my wife, you take her to the hospital' driver.

[tv]

hmmm -- I don't know about that one. I do know that he was orenthal's private 'I've beat my wife, you take her to the hospital' driver.

LOL, that's a good description -- a real man would have confronted Simpson about beating Nicole -- a person that he claimed was a friend. I'm going to look up the info about the Mezzaluna owner. I can't remember exactly what it was.

[weezer]

LOL, that's a good description -- a real man would have confronted Simpson about beating Nicole -- a person that he claimed was a friend. I'm going to look up the info about the Mezzaluna owner. I can't remember exactly what it was.

he talked about the incidences where he was called because Nicole and orenthal were fighting -- even talks about the time orenthal threw Nicole's clothes out of a hotel window. some folks believe he was at orenthal's after the murders and helped clean up. I've always wondered why he had to plead the 5th about the bronco ride IF he wasn't helping orenthal try to run. and I wonder why if he truly believes orenthal didn't murder Ron and Nicole, why he's never mentioned in orenthal's 'circle' of friends since the trial has been over.

[hellraiser]

thanks to all!

aha, so i assume there are many black people here. so let me just throw a rock: who still believes in oj's innocence (regarding the 1994-murders) and WHY?

i have spent so much time, first because of the doubt that bill dear brought up, then the wagner&son homepage but what is left ultimately, at the end of the day? all evidence points to oj. that is so undisputable. the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughts, but how would any oj supporter defend oj's almost unheard-of incriminating behaviour right after the crimes...?

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

and i never believed that there was more than 1 person there, not before, not during and not after the crime.

[fgump2]

TV,

Your post is an example of what I have I have been trying to say. I believe OJ fell in love with a younger woman named, Nicole. Nicole fell in love with an older man, named OJ. OJ did fall in love with Nicole because she was white and Nicole did not fall in love with OJ because he was black. I know that you believe Simpson is guilty, but do believe he killed Nicole because she was white? Their love and in your case, her murder had nothing to do with race. Orenthal and Nicole both displayed immature, angry traits. It would not be suprising if either was attracted by race, or if Nicole liked Orenthal's money. They had a explosive relationship. It would not be surprising if racial tensions played a part in their problems. It would be a waste of time to analyze these possibilities.
One of the major problems I have with the media is how they said that by marrying Nicole, OJ was betraying his race. That he loved Nicole's white skin and not the woman. That Nicole, only loved OJ because he was was more "green" then black---in other words, she married him even though he was black because he was a millionaire. OJ and Nicole both went on trial because they married outside their race, was that an issue that should have ever come up in the trial? Should OJ's "civil rights" and what he had done or hasn't done to help his race been a trial within a trial of him? I don't recall reading much about this. There was a small amount of speculation that racial tensions were a part of the relationship. Occassionaly writers mentioned that Orenthal had his lips thinned early in his pro football career.
Be honest TV, how many times have you posted comments about a majority black jury aquitting a man who you feel should turned his back on his own people by marrying her? By committing the crime aganist of humanity of having several friends, close friends who were white? I don't recall any at all.

One of the reasons why I have have issue with with VB's book, "Outrage" is because of a comment he made that appeared was so racist and disgusting to me but was applauded by many white people. His comment was, "OJ Simpson couldn't find his way to back his 'hood if he was given a map." Or something very close to that.

Tell me TV, what does that comment mean to you? Is that a fair comment to make?

BTW, I didn't vote President Obama.

I don’t entirely agree with what Bugliosi wrote about race in his book on the Simpson trial; but I don’t think any of it was racist.
First of all Bugliosi objected to the fact that Cochran mentioned that Simpson donated $4,000 a year to a black charity that Arnelle was connected with. Bugliosi thought that comment was against the legal rules, and secondly by saying that Cochran had opened the door to any evidence to the contrary; that Simpson had done very little for either low income blacks, and he had no significant work in civil rights. Bugliosi thought that the prosecution should have brought evidence in that showed Simpson had done little for the black community.
.
I think Bugliosi was correct about this. Bugliosi gave evidence that Simpson had done little to help low income blacks. There was more evidence than Jim Brown’s statements.

Bugliosi also wrote: “Simpson would need a road map to get back to the ‘hood…why would they want to mess with someone like this”. I disagree with this somewhat. I agree with that a racist cop would hesitate to frame a minority person with both money and friends in the right place. People like that can fight back.
Bugliosi may have been implying that white racists would have little hate for a rich black man with weak ties with the black community. I think this is questionable. I think that many white racists think of successful/rich blacks as honorary white people; but it would be going too far to say that white racists would never hate such people.

Bugliosi may also have been implying that a person who started out as a low income black person should spend time and money helping other people in these circumstances.
I am an agnostic on this.
Ordinarily people who have been through a difficult experience usually feel a strong tie to others in the same circumstances and they want to help people who are enduring these same hardships. I haven’t tried to form an opinion about those who don’t feel this way. The fact of the matter is that Simpson didn’t feel ties to low income blacks (at least he didn’t act on it), but I don’t think this was his worst fault.

It is possible that Simpson felt and acted on ties to low income blacks, but I don't understand why he would keep this a secret.

[weezer]

thanks to all!

aha, so i assume there are many black people here. so let me just throw a rock: who still believes in oj's innocence (regarding the 1994-murders) and WHY?

i have spent so much time, first because of the doubt that bill dear brought up, then the wagner&son homepage but what is left ultimately, at the end of the day? all evidence points to oj. that is so undisputable. the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughts, but how would any oj supporter defend oj's almost unheard-of incriminating behaviour right after the crimes...?

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

I think what you'll hear is that orenthal couldn't have done it because

1. he's too snappy a dresser to have worn those shoes with that sweatsuit; and/or
2. LE did it because that's what LE does and/or
3. Mark Fuhrman did it because

what you won't hear are any reasonable, credible explanations for orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints being at the murder scene.

[fgump2]

thanks to all!

aha, so i assume there are many black people here. so let me just throw a rock: who still believes in oj's innocence (regarding the 1994-murders) and WHY?

i have spent so much time, first because of the doubt that bill dear brought up, then the wagner&son homepage but what is left ultimately, at the end of the day? all evidence points to oj. that is so undisputable. the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughts, but how would any oj supporter defend oj's almost unheard-of incriminating behaviour right after the crimes...?

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

and i never believed that there was more than 1 person there, not before, not during and not after the crime.
The possibility that Jason and his father would have near identical DNA is pretty far fetched. I would guess close to impossible. Especially since they have different physical appearances. We would have to assume that his first wife had DNA close to Simpson.
Experts now think that women are attracted to men with body smells different from their own, because this would mean that their DNA would be different which would reduce the chance of inbreeding. I don't know if men have the same reaction to body smell.

[tv]

he talked about the incidences where he was called because Nicole and orenthal were fighting -- even talks about the time orenthal threw Nicole's clothes out of a hotel window. some folks believe he was at orenthal's after the murders and helped clean up. I've always wondered why he had to plead the 5th about the bronco ride IF he wasn't helping orenthal try to run. and I wonder why if he truly believes orenthal didn't murder Ron and Nicole, why he's never mentioned in orenthal's 'circle' of friends since the trial has been over.

It's my opinion that he knows exactly what happened but keeps his mouth shut because of some sense of loyalty that he has for Simpson. I can see him being an accomplice after the fact.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughtS. . ." the only people who share the same identical DNA are identical twins -- that puts that theory to rest. the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life. this theory is laughable since orenthal was more than willing to trash Nicole's name and memory in order to save his own lousy butt.

and i never believed that there was more than 1 person there, not before, not during and not after the crime.

if there was never an accomplice, what's your theory on the sweatsuit/lingerie in the washer and why wouldn't anyone own up to it?

[weezer]

It's my opinion that he knows exactly what happened but keeps his mouth shut because of some sense of loyalty that he has for Simpson. I can see him being an accomplice after the fact.

he had spent years covering up for orenthal so I guess this was just one more incident to him.

[tv]

he had spent years covering up for orenthal so I guess this was just one more incident to him.

Just business as usual for AC and OJ. He was very absent during Simpson's trial in Vegas -- at least I didn't see him.

I suppose I was thinking of AC being a bodyguard/driver for the drug smuggler. I'm not sure how I got that mixed up with the Mezzaluna...it's been a long day. :D

[hellraiser]

I think what you'll hear is that orenthal couldn't have done it because

1. he's too snappy a dresser to have worn those shoes with that sweatsuit; and/or
2. LE did it because that's what LE does and/or
3. Mark Fuhrman did it because

what you won't hear are any reasonable, credible explanations for orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints being at the murder scene.

hahah-thanks for summarizing that, fbg.:-)

of course it was #3. no wait, here is what i saw on MAD tv and THEY claim it could've only happened like this:

june 12 th

oj is at home while the murders happen.
he is in a hurry, but decides to put just one glove and the watchcap on anyway.
he looks at the watch. half an hour to go-perfect.
he puts on his best shoes and goes, and here comes MOTIVE: jogging.
he runs and runs, till he is at 875 s. bundy drive, which happens to be
nicole's adress.
out of politeness, he decides to go in to say "Good Evening".
first he fells, a complicated fall onto the sharp curb of the sidewalk, cut his
left middlefinger. he decides to let it bleed out.
as he enters the place he sees that nicole and some guy are lying there.
he says "Good Evening." no response.
in shock, he combs his hair, throws his cap and the glove away

good lord!
:-)

[tv]

TV,

Why don't you answer the question instead of running away from it? What did Simpson's support or lack of support have to do with the murders of Ron and Nicole? I'll tell you what I told martin -- scroll back and read what I said about it. I'm not here for you demand answers to questions I've already answered.

Why should this have been "evidence" in a murder case that should have gone into the jury room and should have affected the verdict? Please post where I said this was evidence.

This is where you get into "trouble"--you are telling a black man that he has no right to judge the credibility of white man's comment about black man who allegedly turned his back on his community. I told the man that he needed to read it in context in order to understand it and discuss it. Too bad if you don't like it. What trouble do you think I'm in? This is a message board -- it's time you put that into perspective.

If you don't like being called a racist, I suggest that you seriously think about how your posts are coming across. If VB has the right to judge to Simpson "blackness" then Martin or anybody else has the right to judge you, IMO. If you truly don't care what anybody thinks about you on the boards, then you wouldn't run and into a corner and play the 'victim' card when you are called to at the very least explain your posts. Whether you think I'm a racist or not is unimportant to me. I know who and what I am. If thinking OJ Simpson is guilty of a double-murder makes you label me a racist I don't care.

Every time you are cornered and you know you have again talked the talked but can't walk the walk, you run and play the victim card. Yet, in many examples of this, you are just jumping on the band wagon what some idiot said, like VB. I don't think I can recall reading a post from you about race that comes from your heart or explains you true feelings---you just jump on the idiots bandwagon. I truly don't understand this about you, but then again, to be fair to you don't have to explain this. I don't owe you any explanations. You're just a shrill harpy that I have to tolerate in order to post on this forum. Your opinions are all over the place and you seldom get content from books or quotes correct. You rarely post a credible link or any link at all to your 'sources' for that matter.

And you did call me out about the comments on MF's book because you posted you read the book and you said my comments were untrue. I explained the subtle examples but again, you ignore this. I have recently broken my policy of not discussing Mark Fuhrman after you attempted to insult me by saying I'm just like him but I'm going to have to go back to that because you don't know when to stop using him to excuse Simpson's actions.

When you claim to have read his book and know that he did write that the black jurors didn't care that Simpson beat his white wife and then do everything possible to bury this fact, is just another problem G's seem to share, IMO. How can I bury anything? It's a book available anywhere fine books are sold. What he said was that the jurors 'didn't seem concerned' about the beatings. It's common knowledge that the jury consultants findings supported this.

NG's speak the truth on the evidence and G's (most G's) speak excuses, not only for the some of the state witnesses but also for themselves, IMO. Posting from your home planet?

And TV, as an American, you can be a racist, however, you need to decide if you are going to come out of the closet about it or go back into the closet and keep all your opinons about this to yourself. You are sending mixed messages, IMO.I'm not going to defend myself to a mental midget such as yourself. If you actually believe that expressing myself on a message board about a murder case where the defendant just happened to be black makes me a racist then you've never met a real racist. I wondered how long you could hold out before showing your true self again. I don't like you but I've tried to make peace with you. After this post I no longer feel obligated to do that. :seeya:

[tv]

hahah-thanks for summarizing that, fbg.:-)

of course it was #3. no wait, here is what i saw on MAD tv and THEY claim it could've only happened like this:

june 12 th

oj is at home while the murders happen.
he is in a hurry, but decides to put just one glove and the watchcap on anyway.
he looks at the watch. half an hour to go-perfect.
he puts on his best shoes and goes, and here comes MOTIVE: jogging.
he runs and runs, till he is at 875 s. bundy drive, which happens to be
nicole's adress.
out of politeness, he decides to go in to say "Good Evening".
first he fells, a complicated fall onto the sharp curb of the sidewalk, cut his
left middlefinger. he decides to let it bleed out.
as he enters the place he sees that nicole and some guy are lying there.
he says "Good Evening." no response.
in shock, he combs his hair, throws his cap and the glove away

good lord!
:-)

LOL, love it hellraiser! :D

[tv]

this is a totally uncalled for personal attack. for you to call TV a racist is outrageous. :cuss:

I wondered how long before she showed her true self again. The gal just can't control herself.

[hellraiser]

hahah yeah, just imagine the courtroom-action: alfred e. neumann as the judge and don martin as oj's defense lawyer! brilliant:-)

[tv]

hahah yeah, just imagine the courtroom-action: alfred e. neumann as the judge and don martin as oj's defense lawyer! brilliant:-)

Spy v. Spy has to be in there somewhere! :biggrin:

[hellraiser]

i wonder if there ever was a "folding-page" in mad magazine. you know, where there is something and then you fold the page and then suddenly there's OJ!:eek:

[tv]

i wonder if there ever was a "folding-page" in mad magazine. you know, where there is something and then you fold the page and then suddenly there's OJ!:eek:

I don't know but I bet if there was they had a field day with it!

[weezer]

i wonder if there ever was a "folding-page" in mad magazine. you know, where there is something and then you fold the page and then suddenly there's OJ!:eek:

I don't think we have to have a fold out -- it seems to be teh story of orenthal's life.

beat wife's car
beat wife
murder wife
steal cable
road rage
beat girlfriend
scream at/threaten young daughter
smack down with oldest daughter
beat girlfriend
commit armed robbery

have I forgotten anything?

[tv]

I don't think we have to have a fold out -- it seems to be teh story of orenthal's life.

beat wife's car
beat wife
murder wife
steal cable
road rage
beat girlfriend
scream at/threaten young daughter
smack down with oldest daughter
beat girlfriend
commit armed robbery

have I forgotten anything?

Great list! Does 'threaten the gardener' go between beat girlfriend and commit armed robbery or between scream at/threaten young daughter and smack down?

[weezer]

Great list! Does 'threaten the gardener' go between beat girlfriend and commit armed robbery or between scream at/threaten young daughter and smack down?

oh gosh -- I forgot

break down ex-wife's door
peep in ex-wife's windows
stalk ex-wife
threaten ex-wife with IRS
threaten gardener

[socaldiva]

oh gosh -- I forgot

break down ex-wife's door
peep in ex-wife's windows
stalk ex-wife
threaten ex-wife with IRS
threaten gardener

Well it's hard to remember all of his fits at once :tongue:

[hellraiser]

I don't think we have to have a fold out -- it seems to be teh story of orenthal's life.

beat wife's car
beat wife
murder wife
steal cable
road rage
beat girlfriend
scream at/threaten young daughter
smack down with oldest daughter
beat girlfriend
commit armed robbery

have I forgotten anything?

LOL:D

imagine going to a job interview with THAT resume!

[hellraiser]

oh gosh -- I forgot

break down ex-wife's door
peep in ex-wife's windows
stalk ex-wife
threaten ex-wife with IRS
threaten gardener

hahah "threaten gardener" now this is a severe allegation, right after "eating lunch"

[tv]

Well it's hard to remember all of his fits at once :tongue:

Hi socal -- ain't that the truth!

[weezer]

forgot

having drug dealer living in his home driving his children to school

[tv]

LOL:D

imagine going to a job interview with THAT resume!I wonder what he'd put under the 'goals' section?

[socaldiva]

forgot

having drug dealer living in his home driving his children to school

Isn't that pathetic?

I've forgotten. Was the wearing of the fanny pack & visor illegal, or just offensive? :D

[tv]

Isn't that pathetic?

I've forgotten. Was the wearing of the fanny pack & visor illegal, or just offensive? :D

If it's not illegal it's offensive enough that it should be! :tongue:

[weezer]

Isn't that pathetic?

I've forgotten. Was the wearing of the fanny pack & visor illegal, or just offensive? :D

OMG -- what a sight! the snappy dresser missed the mark that day didn't he? LOL

[tv]

OMG -- what a sight! the snappy dresser missed the mark that day didn't he? LOL Well, after the socks/sweatsuit combo was revealed to the world he just let himself go!

[GreenIce]

I don’t entirely agree with what Bugliosi wrote about race in his book on the Simpson trial; but I don’t think any of it was racist.
First of all Bugliosi objected to the fact that Cochran mentioned that Simpson donated $4,000 a year to a black charity that Arnelle was connected with. Bugliosi thought that comment was against the legal rules, and secondly by saying that Cochran had opened the door to any evidence to the contrary; that Simpson had done very little for either low income blacks, and he had no significant work in civil rights. Bugliosi thought that the prosecution should have brought evidence in that showed Simpson had done little for the black community.
.
I think Bugliosi was correct about this. Bugliosi gave evidence that Simpson had done little to help low income blacks. There was more evidence than Jim Brown’s statements.

Bugliosi also wrote: “Simpson would need a road map to get back to the ‘hood…why would they want to mess with someone like this”. I disagree with this somewhat. I agree with that a racist cop would hesitate to frame a minority person with both money and friends in the right place. People like that can fight back.
Bugliosi may have been implying that white racists would have little hate for a rich black man with weak ties with the black community. I think this is questionable. I think that many white racists think of successful/rich blacks as honorary white people; but it would be going too far to say that white racists would never hate such people.

Bugliosi may also have been implying that a person who started out as a low income black person should spend time and money helping other people in these circumstances.
I am an agnostic on this.
Ordinarily people who have been through a difficult experience usually feel a strong tie to others in the same circumstances and they want to help people who are enduring these same hardships. I haven’t tried to form an opinion about those who don’t feel this way. The fact of the matter is that Simpson didn’t feel ties to low income blacks (at least he didn’t act on it), but I don’t think this was his worst fault.

It is possible that Simpson felt and acted on ties to low income blacks, but I don't understand why he would keep this a secret.

TV,

Before the trial even started, the discussion about Simpson's ties to the black community, even by blacks and even by a black lawyer in Cochran's firm, Shawn Chapman. I am not black so I do not understand her comments or the others comments any more then than, then I do now. However, regardless of who made the comments, what did it have to do with the murder of Ron and Nicole. I don't think anyone that believes Simpson is guilty killed Nicole because of the color of her skin or that of Ron Goldman's--if he did think they were lovers.

VB's comments are outrageous because by saying that the DA's should have used because he wanted the jurors to find Simpson guilty for a crime that is not crime and had nothing to do with trial.

Does every single celebrity or wealthy person have to go public with all their charities and acts of kindness? Doesn't the Christian promote act of kindness and generosity to be acts that are from heart and not for the "promotional" reasons? However, I do think many celebrities know that the media is key in helping and promoting their charitiy.

VB has no idea what Simpson has and has not done with regards to charity. He does not know the man's heart and by making his comments, he saying that he knows a man's heart when he does not.

When it comes to civil rights, every body has their own style. There are some minority figures who have opened the door to advancement for other minorities while others slam the door open. I do believe Simpson opened doors, I also believe that Jim Brown slams the door open. This is just not a black and white issue. Ellen Degenres, IMO, opens doors, Rosie O'Donnel slams them open. Again, IMO.

I am not saying that Jim Brown does not have his right to opinions, but the bottom line, Mr. Brown does not know any more then VB knows what Simpson's views are on are civil rights as well as his ties to the black community. And again, bottom line, this had nothing to do with the trial.

And lets be honest, if it was so well known that Simpson turned his back on the black community, then don't you think the jurors knew that? Were they supposed to view the evidence through that prism?

I personally can't stand Jim Brown and I hate his style but that does not mean that I do not support what he is trying to accomplish--hate his style but not his goals.

[tv]

TV,

Before the trial even started, the discussion about Simpson's ties to the black community, even by blacks and even by a black lawyer in Cochran's firm, Shawn Chapman. I am not black so I do not understand her comments or the others comments any more then than, then I do now. However, regardless of who made the comments, what did it have to do with the murder of Ron and Nicole. I don't think anyone that believes Simpson is guilty killed Nicole because of the color of her skin or that of Ron Goldman's--if he did think they were lovers.

VB's comments are outrageous because by saying that the DA's should have used because he wanted the jurors to find Simpson guilty for a crime that is not crime and had nothing to do with trial.

Does every single celebrity or wealthy person have to go public with all their charities and acts of kindness? Doesn't the Christian promote act of kindness and generosity to be acts that are from heart and not for the "promotional" reasons? However, I do think many celebrities know that the media is key in helping and promoting their charitiy.

VB has no idea what Simpson has and has not done with regards to charity. He does not know the man's heart and by making his comments, he saying that he knows a man's heart when he does not.

When it comes to civil rights, every body has their own style. There are some minority figures who have opened the door to advancement for other minorities while others slam the door open. I do believe Simpson opened doors, I also believe that Jim Brown slams the door open. This is just not a black and white issue. Ellen Degenres, IMO, opens doors, Rosie O'Donnel slams them open. Again, IMO.

I am not saying that Jim Brown does not have his right to opinions, but the bottom line, Mr. Brown does not know any more then VB knows what Simpson's views are on are civil rights as well as his ties to the black community. And again, bottom line, this had nothing to do with the trial.

And lets be honest, if it was so well known that Simpson turned his back on the black community, then don't you think the jurors knew that? Were they supposed to view the evidence through that prism?

I personally can't stand Jim Brown and I hate his style but that does not mean that I do not support what he is trying to accomplish--hate his style but not his goals.

I don't care how you feel about Jim Brown, Vincent Bugliosi, the jurors, civil rights, Christians or me. You actually think I'm going to continue to discuss anything with you after you called me a racist? I don't know if you roam free or they let you out of a padded room a few times a day to use the internet but leave me alone!:flamemad:

[GreenIce]

Like martin has said before -- it's not an attack when it's the truth.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
"The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | June 21, 1994
LOS ANGELES -- Former star running back Jim Brown said yesterday that O. J. Simpson, his successor as a legendary ball carrier, was plagued by a cocaine problem that may be linked to the crimes.

"Of course it's known that the Juice dealt with cocaine," Brown said yesterday in an interview with ABC-TV's "Good Morning America".

May 31, 1996

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) -- Football star Marcus Allen told lawyers Friday that O.J. Simpson called him from jail and asked him to lie about Allen's relationship with Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson."

TV,

When did Mr. Brown provide any evidence of his claims? Isn't it possible that the LAPD and the DA's would have done an investigation on these claims and found that there was no proof of this? IMO, if they could have tied OJ and cocaine to the murders they would have jumped on it in heartbeat. It would have been a much eaiser case to prove---without having to demonize him.

Marcus Allen is a coward, IMO. No matter what the truth is, he had a chance to help two people he called some of his closest friends. According to Nicole's friends, Nicole did have an affair with Marcus Allen. The only person denying the affair is Marcus Allen.

Don't you think that Kathryn Allen asked Marcus what Simpson meant by his comments about him in the letter? Something like, "not to mess it up" with his wife?

Only two people can be lying about the affair between Marcus and Nicole and that is Marcus and Nicole. Marcus has the slight advantage because Nicole is dead. However, the truth about affair is not the major issue, the major issue is what Simpson believed and why did he believe it and what was his response to this?

Also, if Simpson believed Nicole, that she and Marcus did have an affair, he could not possibly ask Marcus to lie about it. However, I can see where Mr. Allen's lawyers artfully worded that he would not lie about an affair that he did not have even if Simpson believed Nicole as well as several of Nicole's friends.

If Nicole was lying about the affair, she not lied to Simpson but to all her friends and they believed it. I am pretty sure that Marcus Allen was not happy with Nicole with spreading this lie but also probably not happy that Simpson did mention this in his letter. I am sure Marcus Allen was sweating bullets over this because of his wife.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Before the trial even started, the discussion about Simpson's ties to the black community, even by blacks and even by a black lawyer in Cochran's firm, Shawn Chapman.

Why are you trying to turn this into an issue about race?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9202835]I'm not going to defend myself to a mental midget such as yourself.

TV,

Now was that nice?

"I don't like you"

I don't believe that for one second, I think you are lying.:)


But I've tried to make peace with you.

Yes you did and because of that, I will not turn my back on my "G" community. I will always be here for you:)

[GreenIce]

I don't care how you feel about Jim Brown, Vincent Bugliosi, the jurors, civil rights, Christians or me. You actually think I'm going to continue to discuss anything with you after you called me a racist? I don't know if you roam free or they let you out of a padded room a few times a day to use the internet but leave me alone!:flamemad:

TV,

I must say, even when angry, you can still make me smile!:)

[GreenIce]

thanks to all!

aha, so i assume there are many black people here. so let me just throw a rock: who still believes in oj's innocence (regarding the 1994-murders) and WHY?

i have spent so much time, first because of the doubt that bill dear brought up, then the wagner&son homepage but what is left ultimately, at the end of the day? all evidence points to oj. that is so undisputable. the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughts, but how would any oj supporter defend oj's almost unheard-of incriminating behaviour right after the crimes...?

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

and i never believed that there was more than 1 person there, not before, not during and not after the crime.

Hellraiser,

I not exactly sure, but what do you mean by, "all evidence that points to oj to so undisputable"? The key word being undistputable.

Also, what do you mean by "OJ's almost unheard of incriminating behavior right after the crimes"?

Why do you believe that there was never more then 1 person at Bundy? Why do others believe that there is more evidence to support that there was more then one killer at Bundy that night?

[fgump2]

TV,

Before the trial even started, the discussion about Simpson's ties to the black community, even by blacks and even by a black lawyer in Cochran's firm, Shawn Chapman. I am not black so I do not understand her comments or the others comments any more then than, then I do now. However, regardless of who made the comments, what did it have to do with the murder of Ron and Nicole. I don't think anyone that believes Simpson is guilty killed Nicole because of the color of her skin or that of Ron Goldman's--if he did think they were lovers.

VB's comments are outrageous because by saying that the DA's should have used because he wanted the jurors to find Simpson guilty for a crime that is not crime and had nothing to do with trial.
VB made his comments because in the 1995 trial, Cochran made some comments about Simpson spending money to help out the black community. VB said this opened the door for the fact that this was misleading.

Does every single celebrity or wealthy person have to go public with all their charities and acts of kindness? Doesn't the Christian promote act of kindness and generosity to be acts that are from heart and not for the "promotional" reasons? However, I do think many celebrities know that the media is key in helping and promoting their charitiy.

VB has no idea what Simpson has and has not done with regards to charity. He does not know the man's heart and by making his comments, he saying that he knows a man's heart when he does not. VB did some checking. THere was more evidence than Jim Brown's comments.

When it comes to civil rights, every body has their own style. There are some minority figures who have opened the door to advancement for other minorities while others slam the door open. I do believe Simpson opened doors, I also believe that Jim Brown slams the door open. This is just not a black and white issue. Ellen Degenres, IMO, opens doors, Rosie O'Donnel slams them open. Again, IMO.

I am not saying that Jim Brown does not have his right to opinions, but the bottom line, Mr. Brown does not know any more then VB knows what Simpson's views are on are civil rights as well as his ties to the black community. And again, bottom line, this had nothing to do with the trial. It had a small amount to do with the trial because of Cochran's comment about how Simpson donated money to a black organization, Cochran was playing the race card.

And lets be honest, if it was so well known that Simpson turned his back on the black community, then don't you think the jurors knew that? Most blacks ,like most whites don't know much about most celebrities. You are probably ignorant about a lot of celebrities regardless of race. I know I am. Were they supposed to view the evidence through that prism?

I personally can't stand Jim Brown and I hate his style but that does not mean that I do not support what he is trying to accomplish--hate his style but not his goals.
You were replying to me, not to TV on this one.
I disagree with VB on some issues, but don't think he was racist on this. If the defense plays the race card, the prosecution can respond.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=hellraiser;9202816]thanks to all!

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

Hellraiser,

I think Mr. Dear did do an excellent job in his book, however, I do not believe Simpson would have protected Jason. Apparently, Simpson hired a criminal defense lawyer for his son Jason before he even landed in LA as well as hiring him one before he hired one for himself. IMO, if this is true, then Simpson would not have protected Jason if he believed Jason committed the crime. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

You were replying to me, not to TV on this one.
I disagree with VB on some issues, but don't think he was racist on this. If the defense plays the race card, the prosecution can respond.

Fgum2,

I did realize the mix up after it was too late to change it.

Again, IMO, VB's comments are racist. He is a white man who says he has the right to call out any black person and measure his worth in our society by his ties to his black community.

By agreeing with VB on this, then you are saying that Mr. Simpson's ties or lack of ties should have been introduced as evidence and this evidence should have been a determining factor in the verdict.

Yet, not one G's has provided any proof what this has to do with the murders of Ron and Nicole. As it stands now, very few G's, to include yourself have often made negative comments about the jury. Well, what if they did allow VB's racist evidence in, tell me again, how this should have affected the verdict? Please, just one G stand up and say what law is enacted that allows this evidence in?

Remember Dr. Martin Luther King's famous saying, his dream that a man will be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. We all have the right to make opinons known about Mr. Simpson's character. However, not one of us has the right to judge Mr. Simpson by the color of his skin and that is exactly what VB is doing. And if you or anyone one else agrees with VB on this issue and thinks Simpson's "blackness" was on trial, then, IMO, if you are called a racist, you have no body to blame but yourself, IMO.

No matter what you think of me or VB, some G's are judging Mr. Simpson by the color of his skin as well as that of his wife's and Ron's skin color.

[GreenIce]

The possibility that Jason and his father would have near identical DNA is pretty far fetched. I would guess close to impossible. Especially since they have different physical appearances. We would have to assume that his first wife had DNA close to Simpson.
Experts now think that women are attracted to men with body smells different from their own, because this would mean that their DNA would be different which would reduce the chance of inbreeding. I don't know if men have the same reaction to body smell.

fgump2,

You need to be very careful about your first statement. An NG's can destroy your first statement by using their own science against you. Which Simpson family member's blood it was did a play a slight role on in the trial.

[hellraiser]

I wonder what he'd put under the 'goals' section?

i don't know... maybe he is even living some strange double live as fumbling dork-cop "Northberg" - you know, irritating the LAPD in the investigation about his other side, oj........

[weezer]

[QUOTE=hellraiser;9202816]thanks to all!

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

Hellraiser,

I think Mr. Dear did do an excellent job in his book, however, I do not believe Simpson would have protected Jason. Apparently, Simpson hired a criminal defense lawyer for his son Jason before he even landed in LA as well as hiring him one before he hired one for himself. IMO, if this is true, then Simpson would not have protected Jason if he believed Jason committed the crime. Again, IMO.

what shame that you feel the need to disparage an innocent person. orenthal did not hire a defense attorney for Jason before he even landed in LA -- there was no need and orenthal knew it.

[hellraiser]

Hellraiser,

I not exactly sure, but what do you mean by, "all evidence that points to oj to so undisputable"? The key word being undistputable.

Also, what do you mean by "OJ's almost unheard of incriminating behavior right after the crimes"?

Why do you believe that there was never more then 1 person at Bundy? Why do others believe that there is more evidence to support that there was more then one killer at Bundy that night?

that oj is/was/and ever will be the most likely suspect of all the people in this world is undisputable when you look at the evidence against oj (and his personal history is a whole other topic).

low speed-chase (even if it looked staged)
suicide-note
the answer "i don't know." when asked how he got that cut the exact same time the double-knife-murder of his wife happened.
his glove, his cap, his blood, his hair,..... at the crime scene.
(jesus, we even made fun of the obviousness of the evidence in previous posts!)

to repeat vincent bugliosi:

IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME.

in that case you have to come up with such a CONVINCING story, and i mean REAL convincing, unheard-of-convincing, to make everybody BELIEVE it wasn't you, even if ALL evidence points at you. in other words: impossible.

if a third party was really there, then they were too backstage to be seen by justice. and i don't belive in such a theory because there is no proof to that except for wild rumors. and as it happens justice system depends on facts, not sayings.

PS: i don't get why people talk about a third party "helping" him clean up...-clean up WHAT? jesus, the place was a mess! so all third party-conspirators think that the mysterious other people just helped him "clean up" and then disappear into thin air. don't make much sense to me. why should a third party "help" him with anything?

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .PS: i don't get why people talk about a third party "helping" him clean up...-clean up WHAT? jesus, the place was a mess! so all third party-conspirators think that the mysterious other people just helped him "clean up" and then disappear into thin air. don't make much sense to me. why should a third party "help" him with anything?

I don't know that anyone believes there was clean up at Bundy. I think most people are talking about the laundry at Rockingham.

someone put arnelle's laundry basket in that washroom AFTER the maid left and BEFORE LE searched. the maid said the laundry basket was arnelle's and that it wasn't there and no laundry left undone when she left work on Friday. arnelle had been gone and denied doing her laundry that night. the maid also testified that she did not do arnelle's laundry. arnelle testified that the laundry basket was hers. LE found lingerie and the sweatsuit (freshly washed) during the search. When LE went back to collect the sweatsuit, it was gone and no one knew anything about it. now, we can assume that the laundry was arnelle's and that she removed the sweatsuit with the laundry. what happened it? and why lie about it?

[martin II]

thanks to all!

aha, so i assume there are many black people here. so let me just throw a rock: who still believes in oj's innocence (regarding the 1994-murders) and WHY?

i have spent so much time, first because of the doubt that bill dear brought up, then the wagner&son homepage but what is left ultimately, at the end of the day? all evidence points to oj. that is so undisputable. the fact that father(oj) and son(jason) share similar genetic characteristics MAY support all of dear's thoughts, but how would any oj supporter defend oj's almost unheard-of incriminating behaviour right after the crimes...?

the "more than brave father protecs his son"-theory sounds too cheesy for real life.

and i never believed that there was more than 1 person there, not before, not during and not after the crime.


The opinions of the posters that believe in the verdict have been posted here many times with many reasons. All of these posters are not black # one. if you are interested in these many opinions i suggest you do some reading of past post rather than ask black posters to repeat their reasons.imo

[martin II]

tv
whats odd about one of your post is you and another post interject race into the discussion when you call the jury ignorant uneducated and racist.yet when race is discussed as it relates to furhman you cry foul and claim ngs only want to talk about race.imo

[martin II]

that oj is/was/and ever will be the most likely suspect of all the people in this world is undisputable when you look at the evidence against oj (and his personal history is a whole other topic).

low speed-chase (even if it looked staged)
suicide-note
the answer "i don't know." when asked how he got that cut the exact same time the double-knife-murder of his wife happened.
his glove, his cap, his blood, his hair,..... at the crime scene.
(jesus, we even made fun of the obviousness of the evidence in previous posts!)

to repeat vincent bugliosi:

IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME.

in that case you have to come up with such a CONVINCING story, and i mean REAL convincing, unheard-of-convincing, to make everybody BELIEVE it wasn't you, even if ALL evidence points at you. in other words: impossible.

if a third party was really there, then they were too backstage to be seen by justice. and i don't belive in such a theory because there is no proof to that except for wild rumors. and as it happens justice system depends on facts, not sayings.

PS: i don't get why people talk about a third party "helping" him clean up...-clean up WHAT? jesus, the place was a mess! so all third party-conspirators think that the mysterious other people just helped him "clean up" and then disappear into thin air. don't make much sense to me. why should a third party "help" him with anything?

i think the third party helping oj clean up was the only excuse the prosecution had to try to use when they could not prove what happened to the knife and shoes that they believed oj had to have.The search of the streets fron bubdy to rockingham turned up nothing. Same for the search of ojs property.

Parks testimony of what he saw on the porch when he drove to the front door and katos testimony about the porch lights give me reason to believe oj was in his house when park arrived.imo

[martin II]

that oj is/was/and ever will be the most likely suspect of all the people in this world is undisputable when you look at the evidence against oj (and his personal history is a whole other topic).

low speed-chase (even if it looked staged)
suicide-note
the answer "i don't know." when asked how he got that cut the exact same time the double-knife-murder of his wife happened.
his glove, his cap, his blood, his hair,..... at the crime scene.
(jesus, we even made fun of the obviousness of the evidence in previous posts!)

to repeat vincent bugliosi:

IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME.

in that case you have to come up with such a CONVINCING story, and i mean REAL convincing, unheard-of-convincing, to make everybody BELIEVE it wasn't you, even if ALL evidence points at you. in other words: impossible.

if a third party was really there, then they were too backstage to be seen by justice. and i don't belive in such a theory because there is no proof to that except for wild rumors. and as it happens justice system depends on facts, not sayings.

PS: i don't get why people talk about a third party "helping" him clean up...-clean up WHAT? jesus, the place was a mess! so all third party-conspirators think that the mysterious other people just helped him "clean up" and then disappear into thin air. don't make much sense to me. why should a third party "help" him with anything?

FACT

It is a fact that the three detectives testified that in their opinion oj nor anyone else jumped the fence and walked/ran in the s walkway where the glove was found. The prosecution could not prove that oj was in the walkway.Yet in the face of this fact, some just say well he MUST have been there without any proof.

[weezer]

FACT

It is a fact that the three detectives testified that in their opinion oj nor anyone else jumped the fence and walked/ran in the s walkway where the glove was found. The prosecution could not prove that oj was in the walkway.Yet in the face of this fact, some just say well he MUST have been there without any proof.

although you've been given the evidence that this is not true -- you continue to post this as if it is. orenthal left his glove when he was in the walkway! :eek:

[tv]

tv
whats odd about one of your post is you and another post interject race into the discussion when you call the jury ignorant uneducated and racist.yet when race is discussed as it relates to furhman you cry foul and claim ngs only want to talk about race.imo

Please direct me to the post where I called the jury ignorant, uneducated and racist. If you can't do that stop making stuff up. We already have one poster that has one foot in a fantasy world we don't need another. I'll say it again -- you only want to talk about race.

[tv]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9202892]

what shame that you feel the need to disparage an innocent person. orenthal did not hire a defense attorney for Jason before he even landed in LA -- there was no need and orenthal knew it.

It really is pitiful the lengths some people go to make the Butcher of Brentwood look innocent and the phony information they'll put out there as fact.

[weezer]

It really is pitiful the lengths some people go to make the Butcher of Brentwood look innocent and the phony information they'll put out there as fact.

LOL -- girl -- I told you, you can't fix stupid.

[weezer]

How can you reason with someone that doesn't understand that only identical twins have the same DNA? Seriously, it's impossible to have a discussion with someone like that. :shrug:

LOL -- that's the same person who keeps proclaiming that she's 'not black'. anyone else wonder why she feels the need to even say that? psst -- if she's not black, I'm not white. :tongue:

[tv]

LOL -- that's the same person who keeps proclaiming that she's 'not black'. anyone else wonder why she feels the need to even say that? psst -- if she's not black, I'm not white. :tongue:

I wonder why she feels the need to say a lot of things that she says and I don't believe 1/4 of what she claims. There's something wrong with her -- that I know for sure. I feel liberated today because I don't have to force myself to be nice to her anymore. :)

[hellraiser]

hmmm.... again i have to say that "race" is a whole other topic...

so oj was jealous as hell (just imagine IF oj, while hiding around there, had seen ron FIRST: splendid apperance, all dressed up for date, hair styled, handsome, 20 years younger than oj) oj was surely in an out-of-this-world-total-frenzy at the killings (that explains the not-realized cut he got most probably during the not planned fight with ron), but THEN, and come on this is someone with a brain, oj surely planned all this (pre/after) which the exception being the chaotic act itself, not to mention that goldman showed up unexcpected, i think that pretty much RUINED oj's whole structured plan and added a good deal to the aftermath-panic. if ron hadn't showed up, the crime itself (just nicole) would have been conducted different, with LESS evidence lying around there IMO.

[tv]

hmmm.... again i have to say that "race" is a whole other topic...

so oj was jealous as hell, was surely in a total frenzy at the killings (that explains the not-realized cut he got most probably during the not planned fight with ron), but THEN, and come on this is someone with a brain, oj surely planned all this (pre/after) which the exception being the chaotic act itself, not to mention that goldman showed up unexcpected, i think that pretty much RUINED oj's whole structured plan and added a good deal to the aftermath-panic. if ron hadn't showed up, the crime itself (just nicole) would have been conducted different, with LESS evidence lying around there IMO.

I agree that Ron Goldman messed up Simpson's plans in a big way. Killing Ron took a few extra minutes that he hadn't planned on. The cut on his left middle finger fits perfectly with being behind Ron and stabbing at him with his right hand. Some people think his arm would have been up too high to get in the way of the knife but I don't think so. The fight with Ron was chaotic and he had a hard time controlling him. I think that's also how the Bundy glove got pulled off even though one poster says it would have to come off one finger at a time.

[hellraiser]

makes perfectly sense to me too. even the most savvy killer with the most perfect plan can not exclude the "unexpected", and in this case that was ron.

oj's ORIGINAL plan: stabbing her to death because he KNEW that was her worst nightmare.

i think he accepted even the fact that if doing so with a knife, there will be a mess, but he wanted to really show her so he didn't care about the huge amount of blood. and the amount of blood got that huge (both nicole and ron's) because ALL went wrong after ron entered the place. oj simply got the stabbing no more under control.

classic example of how the unexpected ruins your perefct plan.

think of the other scenario, tv:

just nicole. oj did the same things pre/after the murder, but without that much evidence leaving behind - wouldn't he STILL be the most suspicious person in the world? and his alibi (pre: being home alone/after: being home alone) isn't THAT tight, or?

[Hipcheck]

How can you reason with someone that doesn't understand that only identical twins have the same DNA? Seriously, it's impossible to have a discussion with someone like that. :shrug:

How could I have been so stupid all these years thinking O.J. Simpson was guilty of these murders because of his DNA being found at the murder scene?

I am positive who the murderer is now by this DNA left at the murder scene and I think most will agree with me.

Get ready for it............................

The person responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron is none other than O.J. Simpson's identical twin brother O.G..

Looks like I solved another case.

[weezer]

How could I have been so stupid all these years thinking O.J. Simpson was guilty of these murders because of his DNA being found at the murder scene?

I am positive who the murderer is now by this DNA left at the murder scene and I think most will agree with me.

Get ready for it............................

The person responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron is none other than O.J. Simpson's identical twin brother O.G..

Looks like I solved another case.

LOL :beer:

[tv]

makes perfectly sense to me too. even the most savvy killer with the most perfect plan can not exclude the "unexpected", and in this case that was ron.

oj's ORIGINAL plan: stabbing her to death because he KNEW that was her worst nightmare.

i think he accepted even the fact that if doing so with a knife, there will be a mess, but he wanted to really show her so he didn't care about the huge amount of blood. and the amount of blood got that huge (both nicole and ron's) because ALL went wrong after ron entered the place. oj simply got the stabbing no more under control.

classic example of how the unexpected ruins your perefct plan.

think of the other scenario, tv:

just nicole. oj did the same things pre/after the murder, but without that much evidence leaving behind - wouldn't he STILL be the most suspicious person in the world? and his alibi (pre: being home alone/after: being home alone) isn't THAT tight, or?

I think the crime scene would have been much less messy but he would have left something behind even if it was just a drop of blood. His alibi is his word only even though that's enough for some people...like he didn't have a reason to lie?

[tv]

:rolleyes:How could I have been so stupid all these years thinking O.J. Simpson was guilty of these murders because of his DNA being found at the murder scene?

I am positive who the murderer is now by this DNA left at the murder scene and I think most will agree with me.

Get ready for it............................

The person responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron is none other than O.J. Simpson's identical twin brother O.G..

Looks like I solved another case.

Wow, that explains a lot! Maybe he robbed the memorbilia dealers too... :rolleyes:

[weezer]

:rolleyes:

Wow, that explains a lot! Maybe he robbed the memorbilia dealers too... :rolleyes:

LOL :beer:

[tv]

LOL :beer:

This gives new meaning to 'some other dude did it'. :eek:

[hellraiser]

This gives new meaning to 'some other dude did it'. :eek:

that reminds me of another thing:

as far as i know, the upholstery on the bronco's passenger seat, i mean the bottom, you know, where you sit, was quiet intact when the car was being searched, right?

jason's car, right seat: upholstery completely ripped out to the foam.

another one of those "coincidences":-) but i guess it just looks weird when directly compared. i think THAT is really a coincidence.

[martin II]

How could I have been so stupid all these years thinking O.J. Simpson was guilty of these murders because of his DNA being found at the murder scene?

I am positive who the murderer is now by this DNA left at the murder scene and I think most will agree with me.

Get ready for it............................

The person responsible for the murders of Nicole and Ron is none other than O.J. Simpson's identical twin brother O.G..

Looks like I solved another case.

What i know is that many,before the trial started decided that oj was guilty.
i think that others followed this trend of thought during the trial. However to do this one has to ignore the outcome of the trial which proved that the prosecutions did not prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.Some deal with this fact by just calling the jury ignorant uneducated and racist and think that this solves their problem of how the defence destroyed the prosercutions claims in court.imo

[weezer]

What i know is that many,before the trial started decided that oj was guilty.
i think that others followed this trend of thought during the trial. However to do this one has to ignore the outcome of the trial which proved that the prosecutions did not prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.Some deal with this fact by just calling the jury ignorant uneducated and racist and think that this solves their problem of how the defence destroyed the prosercutions claims in court.imo

it's such a foolish statement that before the trial started 'many' decided that he was guilty when the fact is, 'many' more believed it after the trial. the prosecution did satisfy the majority of people as to proving the guilt of orenthal james simpson in the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. But, for the die-hards who needed to believe orenthal was innocent, the civil trial also proved orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. But, for the die-hards who needed to believe orenthal was innocent, he wrote the confessional book and yet we still have posters who continue to post that he's innocent. :punch:

[martin II]

that reminds me of another thing:

as far as i know, the upholstery on the bronco's passenger seat, i mean the bottom, you know, where you sit, was quiet intact when the car was being searched, right?

jason's car, right seat: upholstery completely ripped out to the foam.

another one of those "coincidences":-) but i guess it just looks weird when directly compared. i think THAT is really a coincidence.

Is the info about Jasons car seat in Dears book?

[weezer]

Is the info about Jasons car seat in Dears book?

martin, you're the one always relying on dear and wagner -- do you not know if that is in dear's book?

[GreenIce]

FACT

It is a fact that the three detectives testified that in their opinion oj nor anyone else jumped the fence and walked/ran in the s walkway where the glove was found. The prosecution could not prove that oj was in the walkway.Yet in the face of this fact, some just say well he MUST have been there without any proof.

Martin,

The DA's never provided any proof that anyone jumped the fence, however, Clark and MF have the person into the alley, not out of it. The only evidence they may have, if you believe MF, is the second gate into the alley was open.

I believe when Kato went to check out the noise, he testified that both gates were closed. So either MF is lying about the gate being open or the gate was opened after Simpson left for the airport.

[tv]

martin, you're the one always relying on dear and wagner -- do you not know if that is in dear's book?

weezer, you know there's a couple of posters that never do their own research or retain any knowledge from what little they have researched. Your expectations are just too high.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=hellraiser;9202916]to repeat vincent bugliosi:

IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME.

Hellraiser,

This quote about the blood was said by many, many times before the trial even started.

This quote does not address both sides of the evidence as well as when and how did it get there.

I am sure the person who planted the blood was well aware of these quotes as well.

[hellraiser]

Is the info about Jasons car seat in Dears book?

i heard him say that in the video.

[martin II]

i heard him say that in the video.

Thanks

[martin II]

The problem with the below statement is that the poster does not know whoes blood was on the ground samples that was collected.

Only a lab person knows whoes blood was on the swatches that Mazzola collected and initialed before they were switchwd in the lab and sent out for DNA testing.


"IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME".

[martin II]

Hellraiser,

Apparently, the DA's were always split on this issue, some believed that that one man could not have done this so they believed there were two killers. Clark and Darden both back off of Simpson being the only one involved, Darden believes that Simpson had help afterwards. Since the clothes, the shoes, the weapons have never been recovered, and the DA's had an iron timeline on Simpson that night, they felt for sure they would be able to find these items. When they couldn't, all of the sudden blood start popping up weeks and months later.

Ask our resident *** on the "black magic" of a black man's blood. I am sure you will be intrigued by their explainations. IMO.

Le did look under every rock and person with any kind of direct or indirect connections for the shoes and knife including every inch of his property and the roads from Bundy to Rickingham. The airport trash cans the trash cans at the hotel and the dumpsters in the community of the hotel.they came up with nothing. i think they were looking at the wrong person. however it was after no knife and shoes were found that the prosecution sudenly became creative 6-7 weeks later and planted blood on the sock where there had been no blood and asked all to come see.imo

[tv]

Hellraiser,

Apparently, the DA's were always split on this issue, some believed that that one man could not have done this so they believed there were two killers. Clark and Darden both back off of Simpson being the only one involved, Darden believes that Simpson had help afterwards. Since the clothes, the shoes, the weapons have never been recovered, and the DA's had an iron timeline on Simpson that night, they felt for sure they would be able to find these items. When they couldn't, all of the sudden blood start popping up weeks and months later.

Ask our resident racists on the "black magic" of a black man's blood. I am sure you will be intrigued by their explainations. IMO.

You have a serious problem with impulse control. Why don't you try to debate the issues instead of inventing things that have never been posted?

[tv]

The problem with the below statement is that the poster does not know whoes blood was on the ground samples that was collected.

Only a lab person knows whoes blood was on the swatches that Mazzola collected and initialed before they were switchwd in the lab and sent out for DNA testing.


"IF YOUR BLOOD IS AT THE CRIME SCENE IT'S THE END OF THE BALL GAME".

There is no proof that any evidence was switched.

[martin II]

I don’t entirely agree with what Bugliosi wrote about race in his book on the Simpson trial; but I don’t think any of it was racist.
First of all Bugliosi objected to the fact that Cochran mentioned that Simpson donated $4,000 a year to a black charity that Arnelle was connected with. Bugliosi thought that comment was against the legal rules, and secondly by saying that Cochran had opened the door to any evidence to the contrary; that Simpson had done very little for either low income blacks, and he had no significant work in civil rights. Bugliosi thought that the prosecution should have brought evidence in that showed Simpson had done little for the black community.
.
I think Bugliosi was correct about this. Bugliosi gave evidence that Simpson had done little to help low income blacks. There was more evidence than Jim Brown’s statements.

Bugliosi also wrote: “Simpson would need a road map to get back to the ‘hood…why would they want to mess with someone like this”. I disagree with this somewhat. I agree with that a racist cop would hesitate to frame a minority person with both money and friends in the right place. People like that can fight back.
Bugliosi may have been implying that white racists would have little hate for a rich black man with weak ties with the black community. I think this is questionable. I think that many white racists think of successful/rich blacks as honorary white people; but it would be going too far to say that white racists would never hate such people.

Bugliosi may also have been implying that a person who started out as a low income black person should spend time and money helping other people in these circumstances.
I am an agnostic on this.
Ordinarily people who have been through a difficult experience usually feel a strong tie to others in the same circumstances and they want to help people who are enduring these same hardships. I haven’t tried to form an opinion about those who don’t feel this way. The fact of the matter is that Simpson didn’t feel ties to low income blacks (at least he didn’t act on it), but I don’t think this was his worst fault.

It is possible that Simpson felt and acted on ties to low income blacks, but I don't understand why he would keep this a secret.

you must know that many people give money to various charities in private.
Not all want their givings know to the general public so as to not have many others knocking on their doors.MJ and many others take this route.

i don't think VB or anyone else has the right to publically tell another what they should do with their money.

VB probelm in this case was GG refusal to employ him as a special consultant to the DA to GUIDE them through their case. This resulted in him writing that book where he just attacked everyone includIng the prosecution.imo

[martin II]

There is no proof that any evidence was switched.

It is your right to believe that but testimony proves that there was.

[martin II]

You have a serious problem with impulse control. Why don't you try to debate the issues instead of inventing things that have never been posted?

Your post are becomming personal AGAIN.

[weezer]

You have a serious problem with impulse control. Why don't you try to debate the issues instead of inventing things that have never been posted?

I assumed she was talking about our resident NG's! :shrug:

[weezer]

It is your right to believe that but testimony proves that there was.

no martin -- the testimony proves exactly the opposite! do you not remember judge ito's admonition to the defense?

[tv]

Your post are becomming personal AGAIN.

You don't think calling the posters on this board racist AGAIN is personal?

[tv]

It is your right to believe that but testimony proves that there was.

Please post the testimony that proves it.

[martin II]

Please post the testimony that proves it.

You and i both know this testimony has been posted many times by me and others. Asking that it be posted again kinda indicates that you have little else to say at this time. A few post back it was you that accused me of not paying attention to what had been posted by you and others. hahaha

[hellraiser]

Le did look under every rock and person with any kind of direct or indirect connections for the shoes and knife including every inch of his property and the roads from Bundy to Rickingham. The airport trash cans the trash cans at the hotel and the dumpsters in the community of the hotel.they came up with nothing. i think they were looking at the wrong person. however it was after no knife and shoes were found that the prosecution sudenly became creative 6-7 weeks later and planted blood on the sock where there had been no blood and asked all to come see.imo

hmmm..... i guess, IF this all was thoroughly planned from start to finish then oj would have known where to hide all bloody/evidence stuff so NOBODY finds it.

even if there is a tight timeline, if planned, the evidence is gone (apparentely not ALL evidence!) - how in the hell can someone drop a glove AND the hat at the crime scene?! i still don't get that.

martin II: where have you proof that the blood on the socks got there afterwards?

greetings

[martin II]

You don't think calling the posters on this board racist AGAIN is personal?

Unless you are looking for a fight you can always move past post that you don't like. i do it ervery day with your buds post.i have not read or responded to those post to me in months and i feel great. i have not seen a post calling anyone a racist with your name on it.

[weezer]

Unless you are looking for a fight you can always move past post that you don't like. i do it ervery day with your buds post.i have not read or responded to those post to me in months and i feel great. i have not seen a post calling anyone a racist with your name on it.

aww martin -- are you trying to hurt my feelings? it didn't work. I also have enjoyed you not responding! :D:tongue:

[martin II]

hmmm..... i guess, IF this all was thoroughly planned from start to finish then oj would have known where to hide all bloody/evidence stuff so NOBODY finds it.

even if there is a tight timeline, if planned, the evidence is gone (apparentely not ALL evidence!) - how in the hell can someone drop a glove AND the hat at the crime scene?! i still don't get that.

martin II: where have you proof that the blood on the socks got there afterwards?

greetings

hi

lets start at the beginning.

Fung said the socks were collected because they seemed to be out of place.
i don't know how socks can be considered out of place on a bedroom floor where most people undress. But. fung examined the socks when found and saw no blood.Dr Lee examined the socks in the lab and found no blood. The lab supervisor examined the socks and found no blood on the socks.

le had looked for the knife and shoes every possible place and came up empty. The prosecution was having some problems with some of their witnesses as a result of defence efforts. Mean time the socks were packed away some place in the lab not prcessed for some strange reason.Then someone took the socks out and examined them again and Bingo BLOOD drops on the socks.

The prosecution then request that Martz do some test on the socks.His test did not come back proving what the prosecution expected so they did not call him as their own witness.The defence did.His test imo showed that EDTA was in the blood sample on the sock.

I find it highly unlikely that three professionals examined the socks and then six weeks later the socks were examined and blood drops were suddenly found.imo

[martin II]

hmmm..... i guess, IF this all was thoroughly planned from start to finish then oj would have known where to hide all bloody/evidence stuff so NOBODY finds it.

even if there is a tight timeline, if planned, the evidence is gone (apparentely not ALL evidence!) - how in the hell can someone drop a glove AND the hat at the crime scene?! i still don't get that.

martin II: where have you proof that the blood on the socks got there afterwards?

greetings

considering the time line accepted where did oj actually have time or place to stop and hide any evidence. The prosecution could not come up with a answer so they just kinda dropped the subject after the searches truned up nothing.

he certainly did not do it in the five minutes they claimed it took him to drive home and he certainly did not do it after arriving home.no evidence was found at the Chicago hotel or the community or LAX. There was nothing for oj to hide sitting in his bedroom and taking a shower.

[weezer]

hi

lets start at the beginning.

Fung said the socks were collected because they seemed to be out of place.
i don't know how socks can be considered out of place on a bedroom floor where most people undress. the socks were laying in the middle of an otherwise clean and orderly room. they would look out of place to most people. But. fung examined the socks when found and saw no blood.Dr Lee examined the socks in the lab and found no blood. The lab supervisor examined the socks and found no blood on the socks. unfortunately for martin, this part of his post is untrue.

le had looked for the knife and shoes every possible place and came up empty. The prosecution was having some problems with some of their witnesses as a result of defence efforts. Mean time the socks were packed away some place in the lab not prcessed for some strange reason. not at all odd that a small item is not processed when there were rivers of blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints. Then someone took the socks out and examined them again and Bingo BLOOD drops on the socks.

The prosecution then request that Martz do some test on the socks.His test did not come back proving what the prosecution expected so they did not call him as their own witness.The defence did.His test imo showed that EDTA was in the blood sample on the sock. Martz's test showed a trace amount of EDTA that was attributed to contamination of the equipment. the tests ran at two other labs did not show EDTA.

I find it highly unlikely that three professionals examined the socks and then six weeks later the socks were examined and blood drops were suddenly found.imo

the claim that the 'three professionals examined the socks and then six weeks later the socks were examined and blood drops were suddenly found' is completely untrue. Anyone know what happened to the tests results that the defense conducted?

[tv]

You and i both know this testimony has been posted many times by me and others. Asking that it be posted again kinda indicates that you have little else to say at this time. A few post back it was you that accused me of not paying attention to what had been posted by you and others. hahaha

It hasn't been posted many times because it doesn't exist. You're right that I don't have anything else to say to you at this time. You can continue with your fairy tales that you can't back up. :seeya:

[tv]

the claim that the 'three professionals examined the socks and then six weeks later the socks were examined and blood drops were suddenly found' is completely untrue. Anyone know what happened to the tests results that the defense conducted?

The way I understand it they never made the results known. That would indicate to me that the results implicated their client Orenthal James Simpson.

[tv]

Unless you are looking for a fight you can always move past post that you don't like. i do it ervery day with your buds post.i have not read or responded to those post to me in months and i feel great. i have not seen a post calling anyone a racist with your name on it.

Why don't you be a man and say what you want to weezer without going through me to do it? Why don't you call me what you want without getting GreenIce to do your dirty work?

[GreenIce]

Le did look under every rock and person with any kind of direct or indirect connections for the shoes and knife including every inch of his property and the roads from Bundy to Rickingham. The airport trash cans the trash cans at the hotel and the dumpsters in the community of the hotel.they came up with nothing. i think they were looking at the wrong person. however it was after no knife and shoes were found that the prosecution sudenly became creative 6-7 weeks later and planted blood on the sock where there had been no blood and asked all to come see.imo

Martin,

IMO, the DA's did believe Simpson got rid of the knife, the clothes, the shoes before he made it to Rockingham, which is why they went with that timeline. This was made clear, IMO, with MF's testimony and Clark's closing statements. They had Simpson's timeline, they knew where he had the most time to get rid of the items and when this timeline blew up in their faces, IMO, this caused panic. IMO, it is evidence that Lange and Vanatter thought they solved this case before Simpson was even called. Their actions spoke of arrogance but when they had to defend their actions, their words were that of school boys who got caught by their teacher reading a comic book stuck inside their history book. Again, IMO. Not one of those detectives came off as sincere except for MF. I believe he came off as a sincere racist and liar. Again, IMO.

I don't even think the LAPD seriously believed Siimpson took anything with him to Chicago. I do believe that the blood evidence in the case was weak for the prelim hearing and in Gerald Uelman's book, he says how surprised how many tests came back "inconclusive" when clearly, "conclusive" should have been found.

I think VA knew just how weak the case was because of MF and the evidence and I think he is the most likely person who did the "spiking". I also believe that VA would not have involved his partner or anyone else in this. He strikes me as one of the good ole boys, that if he does go down, he will go down alone---not like MF, he wanted to take everybody down with him.

I think it is obvious that Tom Lange and Ron Phillips were more then happy to turn to their heads and keep their mouths shut. Don't forget, Phillips was the one who called MF into the case, he had to be facing a lot of heat on why he did this. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

considering the time line accepted where did oj actually have time or place to stop and hide any evidence. The prosecution could not come up with a answer so they just kinda dropped the subject after the searches truned up nothing.

he certainly did not do it in the five minutes they claimed it took him to drive home and he certainly did not do it after arriving home.no evidence was found at the Chicago hotel or the community or LAX. There was nothing for oj to hide sitting in his bedroom and taking a shower.

Martin,

IMO, the blood drops on the back gate and the blood drops by the walk way have be considered a wash because of the problems with it. Yes, the blood could have been old or it could have degraded because of the faulty truck (which is insane to believe but I have to give the G's something!). The blood on the back gate--had EDTA in it, it was not collected until almost 3 weeks later, no close up picture taken and conflicting testimony of Lange and Fung.

So shouldn't the bloody footprints have been the key blood evidence at Bundy? Neither side could spin this either way. It appears to me that at least one killer made a point to step in the blood and leave shoeprints. It makes no sense if both and Ron and Nicole were killed from behind why the killer would suddenly walk in front of them and let the blood flow and wait long enough for pools to form and then step in it.

But knowing who's blood it was, would have been important, don't you think? I know Wagner's site had some stuff about pooling times but was it ever entered into evidence who's blood the shoeprints were made in? If the shoe prints were a majority of Ron's blood, then doesn't this killing from behind and blood flow theory of the DA's blow up in their faces?

I think the DA's made a big mistake by inisisting that Ron and Nicole were killed from behind.

I would love to know where the fibers were found on Ron's shirt.

From reading what you have posted, it seems to me the person who left the blood shoe prints did not have to be the killer, all it appeared he did was walk in blood.

[GreenIce]

you must know that many people give money to various charities in private.
Not all want their givings know to the general public so as to not have many others knocking on their doors.MJ and many others take this route.

i don't think VB or anyone else has the right to publically tell another what they should do with their money.

VB probelm in this case was GG refusal to employ him as a special consultant to the DA to GUIDE them through their case. This resulted in him writing that book where he just attacked everyone includIng the prosecution.imo

Martin,

I totally agree with your post. VB is just one bitter former DA who did not to lose his place in legal history in the state of CA. He was made because when he ever talked to the DA's, they all basically told him to leave them alone, they were busy.

I did read his book and it actually hurts at how pathic it is. However, his boasting is almost worth the humor--not quite but almost.

[GreenIce]

It is your right to believe that but testimony proves that there was.

Martin,

IMO, I think another common but highy suspect theme of the DA's case has been missed. Hank Goldberg said it best in his book about the nurse. He did not feel it was necessary for the DA's to proof that the nurse was wrong about how much blood he drew but he did say that the goal should have been that he didn't know how much blood he drew and if he didn't know how blood he drew, then the jury couldn't know how much blood he drew. At least that is what I got out of it.

It seems to me that the same applies to Fung. Neither he or AM counted, inventoried or diagramed where they took blood swatches from. Nor did they take collect all the stains they were suppose to, such as at Rockingham. It seemed to me by DA's highlighting this over and over again the jury, they were trying to do the same. Because Dennis and AM didn't pay attention to where and what they collected, they don't what they collected or at least that is what they tried to do.

What is interesting, and again, IMO, you should read MF's book. He says that Brad Roberts put up the white numbers by the blood drops leading the from the Bronco and the front door and assumed DF was going to collect all of them, like that was standard procedure. Yet, he claims that Vanatter took some of these away and that is why DF only took reference stains. At least that is how I remember it. IMO, if what MF is saying is true about VA, then we know he knows the case is in trouble. IMO.

Also, MF rants that he had the Bronco impounded, that VA and the other senior detectives didn't appear to be taking any action and that when VA left, he left him in charge of Rockingham. So if this is true, why does VA stop the Bronco from being impounded and why does it seem VA reversed every call that MF made?

Another interesting point, MF said that had he and Philips been left in charge of the crime, they never would have left Bundy, yet I can't find where he references getting the order at about 2:30 a.m., ordering himself and Phillips to do just that.

[tv]

no martin -- the testimony proves exactly the opposite! do you not remember judge ito's admonition to the defense?

I'll be happy to post it again! :)

Judge Lance Ito --

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

[martin II]

I'll be happy to post it again! :)

Judge Lance Ito --

"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

you are mistaken

my post had nothing to do with furhman moving a glove or itos comments.
you seem to be following the wrong post.imo

[martin II]

Why don't you be a man and say what you want to weezer without going through me to do it? Why don't you call me what you want without getting GreenIce to do your dirty work?

some time ago i decided to follow the moderators asuggestion and it has worked well for me.i am not concerned that you don't like my position.
ps i am always a man.

at least on two ocassions i have told you that you were a favorite poster of mine, you seem to be intent on changing that.

[tv]

some time ago i decided to follow the moderators asuggestion and it has worked well for me.i am not concerned that you don't like my position.
ps i am always a man.

at least on two ocassions i have told you that you were a favorite poster of mine, you seem to be intent on changing that.

If this is how you treat favorite people I wouldn't want to see how you treat someone you really dislike. I don't care about whatever position you're talking about. See ya -- :seeya:

ps: no, you're not.

[tv]

you are mistaken

my post had nothing to do with furhman moving a glove or itos comments.
you seem to be following the wrong post.imo

Maybe I am but I just love to post that ruling! :D

[martin II]

GI

I think you are absolutely correct about Clarks failed timeline and the problems it created for the prosecution.

She claimed that the murders took place at 10:20 based on a witness saying she heard the dog bark. This also gave her the opportunity to say oj had time to get rid of the shoes and knife.

Cochran then put on Heidstra and Clarkes theory was completely destroyed
and there was no reasonable time for oj to hide the glove and knife before arriving at rockingham.This is what i tried to show in my response to a posters question to me. After Heidstra, Clarke kinda never talked about her timeline of 10;20 again.

[martin II]

Maybe I am but I just love to post that ruling! :D

is this an apology?

[martin II]

If this is how you treat favorite people I wouldn't want to see how you treat someone you really dislike. I don't care about whatever position you're talking about. See ya -- :seeya:

ps: no, you're not.

i haven't treated you or anyone else unfairly.

[tv]

i haven't treated you or anyone else unfairly.

Not going to argue with you...I'll just 'move past' this post.

[tv]

is this an apology?

Uh...no! :shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

I totally agree with your post. VB is just one bitter former DA who did not to lose his place in legal history in the state of CA. He was made because when he ever talked to the DA's, they all basically told him to leave them alone, they were busy.

I did read his book and it actually hurts at how pathic it is. However, his boasting is almost worth the humor--not quite but almost.

The la DAS office had a conviction rate of about 98% vb enjoyed the same rate but his most famouse case was Charlie Manson which i think a bird could have won that case considering the testimony of the people that admitted their participation in the murders.When you have a group of demented people that tell the court they did the murders there is not much skill required by the prosecutor to get a conviction.imo

[martin II]

Uh...no! :shrug:

Thats fine.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think another common but highy suspect theme of the DA's case has been missed. Hank Goldberg said it best in his book about the nurse. He did not feel it was necessary for the DA's to proof that the nurse was wrong about how much blood he drew but he did say that the goal should have been that he didn't know how much blood he drew and if he didn't know how blood he drew, then the jury couldn't know how much blood he drew. At least that is what I got out of it.

It seems to me that the same applies to Fung. Neither he or AM counted, inventoried or diagramed where they took blood swatches from. Nor did they take collect all the stains they were suppose to, such as at Rockingham. It seemed to me by DA's highlighting this over and over again the jury, they were trying to do the same. Because Dennis and AM didn't pay attention to where and what they collected, they don't what they collected or at least that is what they tried to do.

What is interesting, and again, IMO, you should read MF's book. He says that Brad Roberts put up the white numbers by the blood drops leading the from the Bronco and the front door and assumed DF was going to collect all of them, like that was standard procedure. Yet, he claims that Vanatter took some of these away and that is why DF only took reference stains. At least that is how I remember it. IMO, if what MF is saying is true about VA, then we know he knows the case is in trouble. IMO.

Also, MF rants that he had the Bronco impounded, that VA and the other senior detectives didn't appear to be taking any action and that when VA left, he left him in charge of Rockingham. So if this is true, why does VA stop the Bronco from being impounded and why does it seem VA reversed every call that MF made?

Another interesting point, MF said that had he and Philips been left in charge of the crime, they never would have left Bundy, yet I can't find where he references getting the order at about 2:30 a.m., ordering himself and Phillips to do just that.


I think the prosecutions late night arrival at the nurses house with video camera without the judges and defence knowledge and the nurse very sick from cancer just shows the panic the DA had when they could not account for the missing blood the nurse drew. i am sure the jury paid attention to this effort and the question of the missing blood.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the blood drops on the back gate and the blood drops by the walk way have be considered a wash because of the problems with it. Yes, the blood could have been old or it could have degraded because of the faulty truck (which is insane to believe but I have to give the G's something!). The blood on the back gate--had EDTA in it, it was not collected until almost 3 weeks later, no close up picture taken and conflicting testimony of Lange and Fung.

So shouldn't the bloody footprints have been the key blood evidence at Bundy? Neither side could spin this either way. It appears to me that at least one killer made a point to step in the blood and leave shoeprints. It makes no sense if both and Ron and Nicole were killed from behind why the killer would suddenly walk in front of them and let the blood flow and wait long enough for pools to form and then step in it.

But knowing who's blood it was, would have been important, don't you think? I know Wagner's site had some stuff about pooling times but was it ever entered into evidence who's blood the shoeprints were made in? If the shoe prints were a majority of Ron's blood, then doesn't this killing from behind and blood flow theory of the DA's blow up in their faces?

I think the DA's made a big mistake by inisisting that Ron and Nicole were killed from behind.

I would love to know where the fibers were found on Ron's shirt.

From reading what you have posted, it seems to me the person who left the blood shoe prints did not have to be the killer, all it appeared he did was walk in blood.

i will have to think about your last sentence

[weezer]

GI

I think you are absolutely correct about Clarks failed timeline and the problems it created for the prosecution.

She claimed that the murders took place at 10:20 based on a witness saying she heard the dog bark. This also gave her the opportunity to say oj had time to get rid of the shoes and knife.

Cochran then put on Heidstra and Clarkes theory was completely destroyed
and there was no reasonable time for oj to hide the glove and knife before arriving at rockingham.This is what i tried to show in my response to a posters question to me. After Heidstra, Clarke kinda never talked about her timeline of 10;20 again.

you need to fast-forward to the civil trial and orenthal's confession book: orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[tv]

you need to fast-forward to the civil trial and orenthal's confession book: orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

Oh yeah, Petro made mince meat out of the defense in that trial. We know Simpson is absolutely 100% guilty but the confession was just icing on the cake. :)

[tv]

i will have to think about your last sentence

How about the prosecution making a 'big mistake' by insisting that Ron and Nicole were killed from behind?

[weezer]

Oh yeah, Petro made mince meat out of the defense in that trial. We know Simpson is absolutely 100% guilty but the confession was just icing on the cake. :)

without the 'some other guy did it' and/or the 'boogey man theory' there was no defense. ;)

[tv]

without the 'some other guy did it' and/or the 'boogey man theory' there was no defense. ;)

OJ Simpson is the boogey man. One look at the bodies of Ron and Nicole lying crumpled and bloody on the ground with all the evidence pointing to him -- yep, he's the boogey man. :flamemad:

[martin II]

you need to fast-forward to the civil trial and orenthal's confession book: orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

I think oj wrote that book for maby two reasons
To speak about his relationship with nicole direct
To make much needed money.
i never paid much attention to the murder chapter as that was obviously a joke.

[weezer]

OJ Simpson is the boogey man. One look at the bodies of Ron and Nicole lying crumpled and bloody on the ground with all the evidence pointing to him -- yep, he's the boogey man. :flamemad:

I've always thought of orenthal as psychotic but I have to admit, as he gets older he's becoming even scarier.

[weezer]

I think oj wrote that book for maby two reasons
To speak about his relationship with nicole direct
To make much needed money.
i never paid much attention to the murder chapter as that was obviously a joke.

I see you cherry-picked the chapters in orenthal's book to believe using the same standard you apply to testimony and evidence: if it makes orenthal look guilty, it can't be believed. :eek:

[martin II]

OJ Simpson is the boogey man. One look at the bodies of Ron and Nicole lying crumpled and bloody on the ground with all the evidence pointing to him -- yep, he's the boogey man. :flamemad:

From you post it seems that you are looking at the case from the emotional impact it had on you personally. It is easy to overlook other facts from that position
all my opinion.

[tv]

From you post it seems that you are looking at the case from the emotional impact it had on you personally. It is easy to overlook other facts from that position
all my opinion.

What facts do you think I'm overlooking because of feeling sad for the horrible way these two young people died?

[weezer]

What facts do you think I'm overlooking because of feeling sad for the horrible way these two young people died?

this from the guy who thinks orenthal didn't do it because he would never have worn THOSE shoes with THAT sweatsuit! :tongue:

[tv]

I've always thought of orenthal as psychotic but I have to admit, as he gets older he's becoming even scarier.

He's even stopped being a snappy dresser! Dress shoes with no socks when he came out of jail -- that's even worse than Bruno Magli's with a sweatsuit. Looks like he's not as picky about footwear as previously claimed.

[tv]

this from the guy who thinks orenthal didn't do it because he would never have worn THOSE shoes with THAT sweatsuit! :tongue:

Maybe martin is letting his fashion sense cause him to overlook the obvious?

[martin II]

What facts do you think I'm overlooking because of feeling sad for the horrible way these two young people died?

Those that i and others have posted many times.i will take the position you take many times. i am not going to continue to post stuff that has been posted and discussed many times.

[martin II]

Maybe martin is letting his fashion sense cause him to overlook the obvious?

As you make your attacks on oj how about you leave me out of it.

[tv]

As you make your attacks on oj how about you leave me out of it.

I didn't see your name on any posts attacking OJ Simpson.

[tv]

Those that i and others have posted many times.i will take the position you take many times. i am not going to continue to post stuff that has been posted and discussed many times.

Okay.

[martin II]

GI

I believe Ron was attacked from behind in a headlock by someone hiding in the area of the mail box as Ron stood at the front gate.

I believe Nicoles killer was standing behind her when her neck was cut.

I believe both were being attacked at the same time. Based on the short time it is believed both killings took. I believe there were at least two killers.
i can give you details of how this happened if you need me to.All my opinions.

[weezer]

GI

I believe Ron was attacked from behind in a headlock by someone hiding in the area of the mail box as Ron stood at the front gate. testimony is that the gate clanged open and the voice was heard to say "Hey, Hey, Hey." Where do you believe the mailbox was located?

I believe Nicoles killer was standing behind her when her neck was cut.I agree. orenthal planted his size 12 pigeon-toed BM on her back when he pulled her head back and cut her throat.

I believe both were being attacked at the same time. surely you don't mean simultaneously? Based on the short time it is believed both killings took. I believe there were at least two killers. and only one left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints.
i can give you details of how this happened if you need me to.All my opinions.

are we to assume you can give GI details because you were there or did you intend to say that you can give YOUR theory on how it would have happened?

[martin II]

GI

I agree with Wagner on the killings based on the autopsy report and his investigation of the wounds and the pictures he gave.

Ron was attacked from behind when he arrived at the bundy gate by a killer hiding in the mail box area and was put into a headlock with the killers left arm
around his neck as his left jugular was cut which caused him to become very weak very quickly.This headlock caused the killers left fist to be at Rons right ear in a closed fist position making it unlikely that Ron could have pulled the killers left glove off finger by finger as the glove expert said would be required
to get his skin tight glove off.
I think Ron was manhandeled to a sitting position with the killer behind him as the additional wounds were made.This is supported by the heavy blood on the front and back of his jeans.I think some testing wounds were made and he was then tossed to the plant area where he was found.

From her wounds i believe nicole may have fell to the ground as a result of being attacked and that this killer cut her neck from a position behind her which caused her to loose much blood quickly. Nicole had a bump on her head but it did not cause any damage to her skull or brain according to the autposy report.
i have seen nothing that could cause me to believe that she was knocked out
at any time during the attacks.

Based on the time given for the killings i believe that at least two killers killed both Ron and Nicole at the same time.

i do not believe that from his position that ron could have pulled off a glove or hat from the kliller that were found neatly next to each other under the plants.

all my opinion.

All my opinion.

PS
Ron was at the gate, maby saw a killer attacking nicole yelled hey hey hey someone said something back as ron was grabbed and the gate was slammed closed which made the clanging noise heidstra heard.

[GreenIce]

GI

I think you are absolutely correct about Clarks failed timeline and the problems it created for the prosecution.

She claimed that the murders took place at 10:20 based on a witness saying she heard the dog bark. This also gave her the opportunity to say oj had time to get rid of the shoes and knife.

Cochran then put on Heidstra and Clarkes theory was completely destroyed
and there was no reasonable time for oj to hide the glove and knife before arriving at rockingham.This is what i tried to show in my response to a posters question to me. After Heidstra, Clarke kinda never talked about her timeline of 10;20 again.

Martin,

Clark did say something was interesting in her book about Heidstra and why she didn't use him---she said that no one said they heard what he said he heard and if he heard it, then Nicole's neighbors heard it. If this is the true, then how come no one else, that we know of, heard this other? Other then Heidstra and perhaps Sydney Simpson? I wonder if the those people who reported they heard a woman's scream also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the dog barking.

I have a funny feeling that that there are alot of timeline witnesses who either did not come forward, contacted the LAPD and just weren't used. Maybe that is why Clark picked a dog for the start of her timeline.

Also, in VB's book, he does say somethings that are helpful, to the defense that is. He said that Clark did not use Simpson's statement because he does account for his time, even though they "know" he is lying. If Clark had used the statement, then she could not say that he could not account for his time. So by not using his interview, she is conceding "old blood" was going to a real issue and Simpson did account for his whereabouts.

I need to keep reading Vince, just like MF, he will be a gold mine for the defense.

[GreenIce]

I think the prosecutions late night arrival at the nurses house with video camera without the judges and defence knowledge and the nurse very sick from cancer just shows the panic the DA had when they could not account for the missing blood the nurse drew. i am sure the jury paid attention to this effort and the question of the missing blood.

Martin,

I agree, the video taping of the nurse even hurt their case more. Like one juror said, he has been doing this for how long and all the sudden he doesn't remember? Also, he not only testified in two hearings but he was down right angered that Shapiro kept asking him how much blood he drew in the prelim hearing.

Funny, Greg Matheson later said he was off the exact same amount the nurse was off in his estimation. What most people love to forget, once the reference sample was handed over to VA, the nurse was no longer responsible for it. He had no way of knowing what VA put in or took out of any of the reference samples.

I often hear the word coincidence tossed around by the G's in regards to Simpson's guilt but they suddnely forget that word when it comes to the DA's case, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GI

I agree with Wagner on the killings based on the autopsy report and his investigation of the wounds and the pictures he gave.

Ron was attacked from behind when he arrived at the bundy gate by a killer hiding in the mail box area and was put into a headlock with the killers left arm
around his neck as his left jugular was cut which caused him to become very weak very quickly.This headlock caused the killers left fist to be at Rons right ear in a closed fist position making it unlikely that Ron could have pulled the killers left glove off finger by finger as the glove expert said would be required
to get his skin tight glove off.
I think Ron was manhandeled to a sitting position with the killer behind him as the additional wounds were made.This is supported by the heavy blood on the front and back of his jeans.I think some testing wounds were made and he was then tossed to the plant area where he was found.

From her wounds i believe nicole may have fell to the ground as a result of being attacked and that this killer cut her neck from a position behind her which caused her to loose much blood quickly. Nicole had a bump on her head but it did not cause any damage to her skull or brain according to the autposy report.
i have seen nothing that could cause me to believe that she was knocked out
at any time during the attacks.

Based on the time given for the killings i believe that at least two killers killed both Ron and Nicole at the same time.

i do not believe that from his position that ron could have pulled off a glove or hat from the kliller that were found neatly next to each other under the plants.

all my opinion.

All my opinion.

PS
Ron was at the gate, maby saw a killer attacking nicole yelled hey hey hey someone said something back as ron was grabbed and the gate was slammed closed which made the clanging noise heidstra heard.

Martin,

But wouldn't knowing who's blood the footprints were in been key to all of this?

Also, I just thought of this. There was no blood found on or in the hat, correct? If this is the case, then there is no proof that the hat was worn during the commisson of the crimes.

There was Ron and Nicole's blood found inside the Rockingham glove. Now if the blood was spilled or splashed by accident or it wasn't put there purpose, how else could that blood have gotten there. And if there was no blood inside the Bundy glove, then doesn't that question if the gloves were even worn during the murders? I know the blood was found on the outside, but is there any way to determine if the gloves were worn? And how, if Simpson kept his right hand inside the glove, how did Ron's and Nicole's blood get inside of it?

[martin II]

Martin,

But wouldn't knowing who's blood the footprints were in been key to all of this?

Also, I just thought of this. There was no blood found on or in the hat, correct? If this is the case, then there is no proof that the hat was worn during the commisson of the crimes.

There was Ron and Nicole's blood found inside the Rockingham glove. Now if the blood was spilled or splashed by accident or it wasn't put there purpose, how else could that blood have gotten there. And if there was no blood inside the Bundy glove, then doesn't that question if the gloves were even worn during the murders? I know the blood was found on the outside, but is there any way to determine if the gloves were worn? And how, if Simpson kept his right hand inside the glove, how did Ron's and Nicole's blood get inside of it?


I agree which is why i asked the question a few days ago. How did blood get on the inside fingers of a glove if the killer was wearing the gloves during the murders. There is no way to tell if the gloves were actually worn during the killings.These were skin tight gloves and the prosecution claimed that oj wore or carried the glove in a backpack to rockingham and it fell out when he ran into the air unit.That did not happen.

This is a unsolved mystery of how blood got unside the fingers of a glove with a hand in it. Did the prosecution explain how this happened?

I would be surprised if fung did not collect blood samples from the footprints but looking at the location of the prints i would guess they were made in Nicoles blood but not sure.

That cap could have been left there before the murders by anyone including the kids.

I don't think the blood pool would have formed in a minute to allow the foot print to be made. i think it would take more time for this to happen.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree, the video taping of the nurse even hurt their case more. Like one juror said, he has been doing this for how long and all the sudden he doesn't remember? Also, he not only testified in two hearings but he was down right angered that Shapiro kept asking him how much blood he drew in the prelim hearing.

Funny, Greg Matheson later said he was off the exact same amount the nurse was off in his estimation. What most people love to forget, once the reference sample was handed over to VA, the nurse was no longer responsible for it. He had no way of knowing what VA put in or took out of any of the reference samples.

I often hear the word coincidence tossed around by the G's in regards to Simpson's guilt but they suddnely forget that word when it comes to the DA's case, IMO.

For me the nurse used a syringe that had a callibrator on the tube used to show how much blood had been drawn. the nurse said he ignored the callibrations. if he had used a vaccutainer the blood would have in a controlled vile with EDTA

Using the syringe allowed him or vanhatter to take some blood fron the syringe and put it in a vile and the remainder in other viles.vanhatter could then do what he wanted to do with HIS vile while giving the others to fung.
very suspect.IMO

[martin II]

Martin,

Clark did say something was interesting in her book about Heidstra and why she didn't use him---she said that no one said they heard what he said he heard and if he heard it, then Nicole's neighbors heard it. If this is the true, then how come no one else, that we know of, heard this other? Other then Heidstra and perhaps Sydney Simpson? I wonder if the those people who reported they heard a woman's scream also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the dog barking.

I have a funny feeling that that there are alot of timeline witnesses who either did not come forward, contacted the LAPD and just weren't used. Maybe that is why Clark picked a dog for the start of her timeline.

Also, in VB's book, he does say somethings that are helpful, to the defense that is. He said that Clark did not use Simpson's statement because he does account for his time, even though they "know" he is lying. If Clark had used the statement, then she could not say that he could not account for his time. So by not using his interview, she is conceding "old blood" was going to a real issue and Simpson did account for his whereabouts.

I need to keep reading Vince, just like MF, he will be a gold mine for the defense.

CLARKE set her timeline based on Stein and PF saying they heard the dog bark at 10:20 but other neighbors then testified to a later time for the dog barking and their times were in line with Heidstras testimony.Heidstra was very believable and her timeline went down the toilet.

some people that heard certain things did not want to be called to testify so they did not come out.

[tv]

For me the nurse used a syringe that had a callibrator on the tube used to show how much blood had been drawn. the nurse said he ignored the callibrations. if he had used a vaccutainer the blood would have in a controlled vile with EDTA

Using the syringe allowed him or vanhatter to take some blood fron the syringe and put it in a vile and the remainder in other viles.vanhatter could then do what he wanted to do with HIS vile while giving the others to fung.
very suspect.IMO

I'm going to say this again -- when you draw blood into a vial it can still be tampered with. It has a rubber stopper in the top that just pops off. How else do you think they get the blood out for testing? That would have guaranteed nothing.

[tv]

I agree which is why i asked the question a few days ago. How did blood get on the inside fingers of a glove if the killer was wearing the gloves during the murders. There is no way to tell if the gloves were actually worn during the killings.These were skin tight gloves and the prosecution claimed that oj wore or carried the glove in a backpack to rockingham and it fell out when he ran into the air unit.That did not happen.

This is a unsolved mystery of how blood got unside the fingers of a glove with a hand in it. Did the prosecution explain how this happened?

I would be surprised if fung did not collect blood samples from the footprints but looking at the location of the prints i would guess they were made in Nicoles blood but not sure.

That cap could have been left there before the murders by anyone including the kids.

I don't think the blood pool would have formed in a minute to allow the foot print to be made. i think it would take more time for this to happen.

I don't recall the defense making an issue out of blood in the glove fingers so it must not have carried any importance for them.

[martin II]

I'm going to say this again -- when you draw blood into a vial it can still be tampered with. It has a rubber stopper in the top that just pops off. How else do you think they get the blood out for testing? That would have guaranteed nothing.

You are correct BUT the vial can and does have the edta in the bottom. a syringe does not . the syringe containes fresh blood that can be transfered to a non EDTA vial for planting as having come directly from a suspect.imo

[martin II]

I don't recall the defense making an issue out of blood in the glove fingers so it must not have carried any importance for them.

The defence does not have to respond to every DA claim especially when they make their point without responding and believe they have the jury's attention on a issue.
How did the blood get onto the inside fingers of the skin tight gloves.

[tv]

The defence does not have to respond to every DA claim especially when they make their point without responding and believe they have the jury's attention on a issue.
How did the blood get onto the inside fingers of the skin tight gloves.

I don't have any way of knowing how the blood got into the fingers of the glove but I'll put forth a theory. Both gloves came off at the crime scene and he put the other one back on but couldn't find the left hand glove so it was left at the crime scene. He took the glove off again and dropped it accidentally behind Kato's room.

[tv]

You are correct BUT the vial can and does have the edta in the bottom. a syringe does not . the syringe containes fresh blood that can be transfered to a non EDTA vial for planting as having come directly from a suspect.imo

Not every vial has EDTA so that doesn't matter. The top colors could easily be switched to a vial without EDTA.

[GreenIce]

The defence does not have to respond to every DA claim especially when they make their point without responding and believe they have the jury's attention on a issue.
How did the blood get onto the inside fingers of the skin tight gloves.

Martin,

IMO, this may have been covered in the trial but it was not picked up upon. Like the stick in the parkway, MF's notes, etc. However, it is fair to the say that DA's case in chief dragged out forever and by the time the defense got the case, they did have have a time issue on their hands. I think they were wise to leave the glove alone after the demonstration. If you combine the demonstration, who, when and where the glove was found and where Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove, I don't think it mattered how and when Ron and Nicole's blood got inside the lining. But like I said, this may have been covered and we just never noticed it.

What I would like to know is what happened the tags inside the gloves. How did they get lost?

Just to make sure I have this right, I am under the impression the gloves were identified by Richard Rubin by looking at them. That there were no tags found inside the gloves and the receipt of Nicole's only had a model number which was wrong, correct?

[GreenIce]

You are correct BUT the vial can and does have the edta in the bottom. a syringe does not . the syringe containes fresh blood that can be transfered to a non EDTA vial for planting as having come directly from a suspect.imo

Martin,

Would any blood drawn from Ron and Nicole be kept in the exact same type of blood vial as Simpson's was?

Also, could Ron and Nicole's blood been drawn and contained in a couple of different types of vials?

[GreenIce]

makes perfectly sense to me too. even the most savvy killer with the most perfect plan can not exclude the "unexpected", and in this case that was ron.

oj's ORIGINAL plan: stabbing her to death because he KNEW that was her worst nightmare.

i think he accepted even the fact that if doing so with a knife, there will be a mess, but he wanted to really show her so he didn't care about the huge amount of blood. and the amount of blood got that huge (both nicole and ron's) because ALL went wrong after ron entered the place. oj simply got the stabbing no more under control.

classic example of how the unexpected ruins your perefct plan.

think of the other scenario, tv:

just nicole. oj did the same things pre/after the murder, but without that much evidence leaving behind - wouldn't he STILL be the most suspicious person in the world? and his alibi (pre: being home alone/after: being home alone) isn't THAT tight, or?

Hellriser,

Do you really think Simpson would be more concerned on how he killed her, knowing the risks he would take involving using a knife? If Simpson's purpose was to kill her and he had to do it that night, a knife would have been the last weapon he would have picked, IMO.

I know Kato has spoken about Nicole's fear that Simpson would kill her with scissors. How this conversation ever came about or what the full content was, I have never been able to find it.

And Nicole's fear about being killed with scissors mean nothing unless Simpson knew this. I dont remember any writings of Nicole's where she layed out that Simpson was going to kill her with a knife. There was no report of any DV between the Simpson's that involved a weapon. Hitting the windshield of your own car with a basebat is not too cool but it is not a crime. Much talk has been made about MF and not making a report about this incident when it happened. While Nicole was said have been crying, no where does it indicate that Simpson ever threatened Nicole with any physical harm. The only description I have heard of this incident is that Nicole confronted Simpson (again) was about his cheating on her. Was Nicole sobbing over that? Makes sense. Was she also crying because she was mad that not only was he cheating on her, but he cracked the windshield on the car he said he gave her, that makes sense as well. However, crying over being cheating on and broken windshield does not mean that Nicole was crying for her safety, that he was threatened.

In the 1989 incident, there was no weapon involved. In the 1993 incident, again, there was no weapon involved and Nicole was asked about it.

If you know the evidence, then you know that who ever killed Ron and Nicole were not surprised by another adult being present. Who ever went there, knew another adult was going to be there. Faye knew Ron was coming over, when in fact, she could not have known that. Dr. Ameli spoke to Nicole who has Nicole in fear of Simpson coming for her that night and recommends that Nicole have a friend sit with her that night until Simpson left for the airport. So there is that possibilty that Dr. Ameli knew that Nicole was already expecting someone or that Nicole told her she would take her advice and call a friend over.

Simpson knew that Nicole was expecting a guest that night. Why would he kill her knowing that his daughter had a friend sleeping over that night and Nicole was expecting someone that night?

Also, the person who called the police station asked about two bodies on Bundy that night--that is a pretty good guess, don't you think?

When the story first broke, Nicole's sisters described the condo as being set for a guest. Later they changed their story. In the book written with the permission of the Brown family, again, it says that Nicole was expecting someone that night.

The only person who puts a name to a possible guest is Faye Resnick and she said it was Marcus Allen. Jill S., said she thought the driver of the white SUV was Marcus Allen at first, until she heard the voice--then she knew it had to be OJ Simpson. Well that makes no sense at all--because how did she know his voice by his screaming at another driver? Don't you think the LAPD would have investigated the "voice" and had a voice "line up"? And before you laugh, they do have conduct those things---which I still don't get but they do.

BTW, if Simpson's perfect plan was to kill Nicole at the condo while his kids were sleeping upstairs and he did so, he never would have asked why his kids were at the police station when he was told about Nicole's death. IMO, his question points to the obvious, he had no idea where Nicole was killed. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Not every vial has EDTA so that doesn't matter. The top colors could easily be switched to a vial without EDTA.

there is purple,red and i think beige maby more top vials. most vials have edta
but if no peserative is required the vial would be empty.
the vials used by lapd had edta.
But a syringe does not have edta which makes it the perfect vehicle to transport fresh blood, put it in a place like rockingham and say they found ojs blood there.
Vanhatter took ojs blood from the nurse taken in a syringe which would allow him to have fresh blood with no EDTA and plant it where wanted to.
if the blood had been taken using a vaccutainer it would have had edta and could not be planted.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, this may have been covered in the trial but it was not picked up upon. Like the stick in the parkway, MF's notes, etc. However, it is fair to the say that DA's case in chief dragged out forever and by the time the defense got the case, they did have have a time issue on their hands. I think they were wise to leave the glove alone after the demonstration. If you combine the demonstration, who, when and where the glove was found and where Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove, I don't think it mattered how and when Ron and Nicole's blood got inside the lining. But like I said, this may have been covered and we just never noticed it.

What I would like to know is what happened the tags inside the gloves. How did they get lost?

Just to make sure I have this right, I am under the impression the gloves were identified by Richard Rubin by looking at them. That there were no tags found inside the gloves and the receipt of Nicole's only had a model number which was wrong, correct?

yes correct
inside and under the linning there was a lot number on the underside of the leather. the sales receipt had no color or size and a wrong model number so we don't know exactly what glove nicole baught.

someone cut the content tag that would have the fabric type and size out of the gloves in the lab.

[martin II]

Martin,

Would any blood drawn from Ron and Nicole be kept in the exact same type of blood vial as Simpson's was?

Also, could Ron and Nicole's blood been drawn and contained in a couple of different types of vials?

on a dead body they may use a syringe because of no heart beat to pump the blood.

on a live person most everyone use a vaccutainer attatched to a vial with EDTA in the bottom. on oj they used a syringe so as to be able to take some blood out with no edta.
i see no reason why blood drawn from a dead body would be kept in different type vials

[tv]

there is purple,red and i think beige maby more top vials. most vials have edta
but if no peserative is required the vial would be empty.
the vials used by lapd had edta.
But a syringe does not have edta which makes it the perfect vehicle to transport fresh blood, put it in a place like rockingham and say they found ojs blood there.
Vanhatter took ojs blood from the nurse taken in a syringe which would allow him to have fresh blood with no EDTA and plant it where wanted to.
if the blood had been taken using a vaccutainer it would have had edta and could not be planted.

martin, there are vacuutainers that don't have EDTA. Different vials are used for different blood tests. It would have been easy for him to draw it up into a vial that didn't contain EDTA. Most vials do not have EDTA. Most vials have other additives depending on the test that's going to be run but there are vials that don't have any additive. I can't be sure but I believe the red top tube is additive free. All this stuff about the nurse and whether he used a syringe or a vial doesn't add up to anything.

[tv]

yes correct
inside and under the linning there was a lot number on the underside of the leather. the sales receipt had no color or size and a wrong model number so we don't know exactly what glove nicole baught.

someone cut the content tag that would have the fabric type and size out of the gloves in the lab.

It's my understanding that it was the defense testing that cut up so much of the inside of the gloves. I wonder why they didn't make their results known?

[GreenIce]

yes correct
inside and under the linning there was a lot number on the underside of the leather. the sales receipt had no color or size and a wrong model number so we don't know exactly what glove nicole baught.

someone cut the content tag that would have the fabric type and size out of the gloves in the lab.

Martin,

So having the tags from inside the gloves, should have pinpointed who made the gloves, where they were manufactured and what store or stores the lot numbers went to. So basically, the glove witnesses were testifying about gloves and making assumpstions on how the glove was made and not using any information, such as the tags to base their testimony.

VB brings up something interesting in his book about the gloves. He said the DA's took a huge, huge risk by not introducing the pictures of Simpson wearing the gloves in their case in chief. That Johnnie Cochran's objections to this evidence being introduced in their rebuttal case was a justifiable objection and that the DA's were lucky Ito allowed the pictures. Cochran's objection was based on they did not open the door to the pictures during their case.

After the glove demo disaster, I would think the DA's would have introduced these pictures.

I read his book years ago, when it first came out and I found it painful but reading it now after all these years, he asks questions that clearly point out the weaknesses in the DA's case.

IMO, it obvious that VB's highlights the fears of the DA's and just how weak their case was.

However, his racist theme just doesn't pinch a nerve, it severs it! Perhaps that is why legal "scholars" and other pro DA's talking heads never got behind his book.

[GreenIce]

there is purple,red and i think beige maby more top vials. most vials have edta
but if no peserative is required the vial would be empty.
the vials used by lapd had edta.
But a syringe does not have edta which makes it the perfect vehicle to transport fresh blood, put it in a place like rockingham and say they found ojs blood there.
Vanhatter took ojs blood from the nurse taken in a syringe which would allow him to have fresh blood with no EDTA and plant it where wanted to.
if the blood had been taken using a vaccutainer it would have had edta and could not be planted.

Martin,

What do you mean that VA took a syringe with Simpson's blood in it. You mean he was given the syringe by the nurse and he transfered the blood into the vial and then he left with the vial and the syringe? The syringe that actually was used given to VA?

You got to be kidding!

Simpson's blood being found inside the reference samples of Ron and Nicole become a much more interesting factor in this case, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

What do you mean that VA took a syringe with Simpson's blood in it. You mean he was given the syringe by the nurse and he transfered the blood into the vial and then he left with the vial and the syringe? The syringe that actually was used given to VA?

You got to be kidding!

Simpson's blood being found inside the reference samples of Ron and Nicole become a much more interesting factor in this case, IMO.

no i don't mean that as i don't know exactly what happened to the blood after the nurse drew it.i was trying to say it was possible for the nurse or vanhatter to use the syringe to put blood in one two or three vials.if one of these vials had no edta then it Could be planted as blood comming directly from someone. I don't remember exacxtly what the nurse testified to about the process he used when drawing the blood but the strange thing is he said he did ignore the calibrations on the syringe tube which told him exactly how much blood he drew. in a case like this or any case he should have known how much he drew and made some written record of it.

If Vanhatter had not carried the bloood around for a while and brought it to a crime scene this may not have been a issue but he did.

[martin II]

Martin,

So having the tags from inside the gloves, should have pinpointed who made the gloves, where they were manufactured and what store or stores the lot numbers went to. So basically, the glove witnesses were testifying about gloves and making assumpstions on how the glove was made and not using any information, such as the tags to base their testimony.

VB brings up something interesting in his book about the gloves. He said the DA's took a huge, huge risk by not introducing the pictures of Simpson wearing the gloves in their case in chief. That Johnnie Cochran's objections to this evidence being introduced in their rebuttal case was a justifiable objection and that the DA's were lucky Ito allowed the pictures. Cochran's objection was based on they did not open the door to the pictures during their case.

After the glove demo disaster, I would think the DA's would have introduced these pictures.

I read his book years ago, when it first came out and I found it painful but reading it now after all these years, he asks questions that clearly point out the weaknesses in the DA's case.

IMO, it obvious that VB's highlights the fears of the DA's and just how weak their case was.

However, his racist theme just doesn't pinch a nerve, it severs it! Perhaps that is why legal "scholars" and other pro DA's talking heads never got behind his book.

After the prosecution told VB to leave them along his ego was smashed as he had thought he was top dog.He then wrote the book samashing the DA as if he knew their plan. he must have been nuts to think that the prosecution would show their inability to prosecute the case unless they had help from him.

i think some that thought oj was guilty were pleased to read the attacks on the defence in hois book but kinda ignored his attacks on the prosdecution. but the legal community as a whole understood that his book was written out of anger and not facts. He exposed himself when he made the racial commernts about on a non issue.most people know ojs communication with the black or white community had nothing to do with the case. Some that have supported his racist comments do not seem to understand the issues od this murder trial.It was not a trial to evaluate ojs givings to a community.

Just as it would be unfair to ask what charity Nicole gave to it is unfair to ask that question oj.
on 6/11 oj and Paula did give his name and support to a jewish charity and many of these charities give to black and white needy people.

[martin II]

It's my understanding that it was the defense testing that cut up so much of the inside of the gloves. I wonder why they didn't make their results known?

The prosecution had the gloves first. is there testimony that the defence cut anthing out of the gloves? i don't think so they would need the courts approval to alter evidence. The defence did not alter any evidence and you are smart enough to know this.

[martin II]

It is obvious that the lab cut the size and content labels out of the glove which made it impossible to tell the size,color and model #.

[martin II]

martin, there are vacuutainers that don't have EDTA. Different vials are used for different blood tests. It would have been easy for him to draw it up into a vial that didn't contain EDTA. Most vials do not have EDTA. Most vials have other additives depending on the test that's going to be run but there are vials that don't have any additive. I can't be sure but I believe the red top tube is additive free. All this stuff about the nurse and whether he used a syringe or a vial doesn't add up to anything.

you are correct in most of what you say

the use of the syringe allowed someone to put some of this blood into a vial that did not have any perservative which could them be planted.that is as simple as can make it.

[tv]

After the prosecution told VB to leave them along his ego was smashed as he had thought he was top dog. Never happened. He then wrote the book samashing the DA as if he knew their plan. he must have been nuts to think that the prosecution would show their inability to prosecute the case unless they had help from him. Totally untrue.

i think some that thought oj was guilty were pleased to read the attacks on the defence in hois book but kinda ignored his attacks on the prosdecution. I didn't ignore them. He had valid criticisms of both teams. but the legal community as a whole understood that his book was written out of anger and not facts. Not true, his book was very well received. He exposed himself when he made the racial commernts about on a non issue. most people know ojs communication with the black or white community had nothing to do with the case. Some that have supported his racist comments do not seem to understand the issues od this murder trial.It was not a trial to evaluate ojs givings to a community. Mr. Bugliosi is not a racist and people on this board that agree or understand his remarks are not racist or making racist comments. Even though you continue to talk about this and nothing else in his book it was actually a small part of his book.

Just as it would be unfair to ask what charity Nicole gave to it is unfair to ask that question oj. Mr. Bugliosi didn't care who or what OJS supported. He was showing that Johnnie lied about Simpson's charity contributions.

on 6/11 oj and Paula did give his name and support to a jewish charity and many of these charities give to black and white needy people. How nice of Paula.

I really don't understand these continuing attacks on Vincent Bugliosi. You keep saying he's irrelevant to the trial but you keep giving him space on this forum. A lot of people that didn't participate in the case wrote books -- what is your complaint about him doing the same thing? Maybe because he believes your guy is guilty?

[martin II]

I really don't understand these continuing attacks on Vincent Bugliosi. You keep saying he's irrelevant to the trial but you keep giving him space on this forum. A lot of people that didn't participate in the case wrote books -- what is your complaint about him doing the same thing? Maybe because he believes your guy is guilty?

What VB said was never a interest to me after hearing him before durting and after the trial. But someone here posted his racist comments about oj which led to further examination of him and his actions.It is only fair to look at the blunders he made by thinging he was the best lawyer in the room.

VB believed everyone is guilty of something and he said so in his rag of a book.ps VB had to include spicy stuff in his book to get buyers and he knew that some would like to read his racist views of oj.

[tv]

What VB said was never a interest to me after hearing him before durting and after the trial. But someone here posted his racist comments about oj which led to further examination of him and his actions.It is only fair to look at the blunders he made by thinging he was the best lawyer in the room.

VB believed everyone is guilty of something and he said so in his rag of a book.

martin, his comments were not racist just because GI says they are. He criticized both sides of the case and was actually much harder on the prosecution than the defense. We've gone round and round with this many times and I've lost interest in continuing to talk about it.

[fgump2]

Martin,

So having the tags from inside the gloves, should have pinpointed who made the gloves, where they were manufactured and what store or stores the lot numbers went to. So basically, the glove witnesses were testifying about gloves and making assumpstions on how the glove was made and not using any information, such as the tags to base their testimony.

VB brings up something interesting in his book about the gloves. He said the DA's took a huge, huge risk by not introducing the pictures of Simpson wearing the gloves in their case in chief. That Johnnie Cochran's objections to this evidence being introduced in their rebuttal case was a justifiable objection and that the DA's were lucky Ito allowed the pictures. Cochran's objection was based on they did not open the door to the pictures during their case.

After the glove demo disaster, I would think the DA's would have introduced these pictures.

I read his book years ago, when it first came out and I found it painful but reading it now after all these years, he asks questions that clearly point out the weaknesses in the DA's case.

IMO, it obvious that VB's highlights the fears of the DA's and just how weak their case was.

However, his racist theme just doesn't pinch a nerve, it severs it! Perhaps that is why legal "scholars" and other pro DA's talking heads never got behind his book.


I may be repeating myself, but I don't see VB being racist on the comments about SImpson's commitment to black charities and the black community.

Do you think it is OK for J. Cochran to talk in court about Simpson's commitment to low income blacks, and that both the prosecution and anti Simpson people aren't allowed to refute this arguement? I have some disagreement with Bugliosi on this, but I don't see him as racist. He devoted more of his book to defending the jury against charges of racism and also wrote that the black community had valid complaints about racism on the part of the LAPD.

I think that you should remember that if a word is used too often, it looses it's force, and people ignore it. Look what happens to antibiotics that are used too often.

[GreenIce]

After the prosecution told VB to leave them along his ego was smashed as he had thought he was top dog.He then wrote the book samashing the DA as if he knew their plan. he must have been nuts to think that the prosecution would show their inability to prosecute the case unless they had help from him.

i think some that thought oj was guilty were pleased to read the attacks on the defence in hois book but kinda ignored his attacks on the prosdecution. but the legal community as a whole understood that his book was written out of anger and not facts. He exposed himself when he made the racial commernts about on a non issue.most people know ojs communication with the black or white community had nothing to do with the case. Some that have supported his racist comments do not seem to understand the issues od this murder trial.It was not a trial to evaluate ojs givings to a community.

Just as it would be unfair to ask what charity Nicole gave to it is unfair to ask that question oj.
on 6/11 oj and Paula did give his name and support to a jewish charity and many of these charities give to black and white needy people.

Martin,

I would love to have asked VB what charities he gave to. IMO, I think any of us would be offended if our charitable or charity work went on trial if it did not go to a cause that supported our ethic or religous backround.

I agree with you about VB. But I do think he warms a NG's heart with a lot of his comments---like Simpson did account for his time and the DA's bowed to this.

[GreenIce]

no i don't mean that as i don't know exactly what happened to the blood after the nurse drew it.i was trying to say it was possible for the nurse or vanhatter to use the syringe to put blood in one two or three vials.if one of these vials had no edta then it Could be planted as blood comming directly from someone. I don't remember exacxtly what the nurse testified to about the process he used when drawing the blood but the strange thing is he said he did ignore the calibrations on the syringe tube which told him exactly how much blood he drew. in a case like this or any case he should have known how much he drew and made some written record of it.

If Vanhatter had not carried the bloood around for a while and brought it to a crime scene this may not have been a issue but he did.

Martin,

IMO, VA knew exactly what he was doing when he brought it the crime scene. He was banking on the media, his answers made no sense, it was like he was screaming for everyone to look at him. By focusing on the carrying of the blood, it took the focus off other issues that were hidden while he was called out on this.

I think what was more damaging and how this was not known in the criminal trial is that VA had Ron and Nicole's reference samples and lied about them. It now explains why Simpson's blood was found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples. Any combination of the blood of the three of them is called into question, IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You may call me what you wish. But, bottom line, VB has made you believe that Simpson's ties to the African-American community should have gone on trial. His ties to the community had nothing to do with the murders of Ron and Nicole. For him to say that the black jurors should have been told not only about this but also that a Johnnie Cochran, a black man, repeatedly lied to them in the trial, they should have convicted Simpson on this. Not on the evidence but on his blackness and that of Johnnie Cochran's.

How offend would you be if you went on trial and your ties to your community went on trial, how would you like it? Did you ever wonder what ties VB has to his community or does it only matter if you are a minority?

I think VB is a loud mouth racist who feels he can determine when someone is reformed, that all he needs to know is a man's ties or lack of ties to his community to determine if they are even worthy of a trial.

I stand by what I said about him. Please, stand by what you call me, I am not offended. However, since I am white, like VB, I don't know how that really works.
The point that you and Martin have consistentlyl ignored is that J. Cochran brought up the fact that Mr. Simpson donated to some black charity every year. VB wrote that since Cochran brought that up, that opened the door to contrary evidence on that point. Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". This probably didn't influence the jury much; but if they are going to bring up either his charitable activities or his ties to low income blacks, then the prosecution can comment on those subjects as well.

Ever heard the expression "sauce for the goose, sause for the gander" ?
I believe that such things as SImpsons charitable donations should have been left out. To slam VB for bringing it up, and then call Cochran the magnificent one, and ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought the subject up, is illogical.

[martin II]

The point that you and Martin have consistentlyl ignored is that J. Cochran brought up the fact that Mr. Simpson donated to some black charity every year. VB wrote that since Cochran brought that up, that opened the door to contrary evidence on that point. Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". This probably didn't influence the jury much; but if they are going to bring up either his charitable activities or his ties to low income blacks, then the prosecution can comment on those subjects as well.

Ever heard the expression "sauce for the goose, sause for the gander" ?
I believe that such things as SImpsons charitable donations should have been left out. To slam VB for bringing it up, and then call Cochran the magnificent one, and ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought the subject up, is illogical.


VB is a washed up old prosecutor and a angry old man that wrote a book but i am not in the least bit surprised that he is your hero.imo

[martin II]

The point that you and Martin have consistentlyl ignored is that J. Cochran brought up the fact that Mr. Simpson donated to some black charity every year. VB wrote that since Cochran brought that up, that opened the door to contrary evidence on that point. Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". This probably didn't influence the jury much; but if they are going to bring up either his charitable activities or his ties to low income blacks, then the prosecution can comment on those subjects as well.

Ever heard the expression "sauce for the goose, sause for the gander" ?
I believe that such things as SImpsons charitable donations should have been left out. To slam VB for bringing it up, and then call Cochran the magnificent one, and ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought the subject up, is illogical.

oj was on trial for murder. obviously you believe he should have been on trial for every thing you in your research believe can think of.
It is not that difficult for you to ask someone to give you the details of what a murder trial is about. This way you will not have to continue to try to impress posters by posting about your off the wall and off subject research.

imo

[martin II]

The point that you and Martin have consistentlyl ignored is that J. Cochran brought up the fact that Mr. Simpson donated to some black charity every year. VB wrote that since Cochran brought that up, that opened the door to contrary evidence on that point. Cochran said:"This man gives five thousand dollars a year to the Angel City Links, the inner-city black organization, and the only condition is that it has to be anonymous, that he doesn't want them to know he does this". This probably didn't influence the jury much; but if they are going to bring up either his charitable activities or his ties to low income blacks, then the prosecution can comment on those subjects as well.

Ever heard the expression "sauce for the goose, sause for the gander" ?
I believe that such things as SImpsons charitable donations should have been left out. To slam VB for bringing it up, and then call Cochran the magnificent one, and ignore the fact that it was Cochran who brought the subject up, is illogical.


VB.A old used up use to be prosecutor that makes racist comments that no one wants to be bothered with.

j. Cochran . magnificent one,

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, VA knew exactly what he was doing when he brought it the crime scene. He was banking on the media, his answers made no sense, it was like he was screaming for everyone to look at him. By focusing on the carrying of the blood, it took the focus off other issues that were hidden while he was called out on this.

I think what was more damaging and how this was not known in the criminal trial is that VA had Ron and Nicole's reference samples and lied about them. It now explains why Simpson's blood was found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples. Any combination of the blood of the three of them is called into question, IMO.

Vanhatter had everyones blood and access to the lab.

[martin II]

GI

I don't think oj or Cochran called VB and laid out ojs finances. So anything loud mouth said was just made up. His comments about the prosecution was the results of them putting him in his place.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, VA knew exactly what he was doing when he brought it the crime scene. He was banking on the media, his answers made no sense, it was like he was screaming for everyone to look at him. By focusing on the carrying of the blood, it took the focus off other issues that were hidden while he was called out on this.

I think what was more damaging and how this was not known in the criminal trial is that VA had Ron and Nicole's reference samples and lied about them. It now explains why Simpson's blood was found in Ron and Nicole's reference samples. Any combination of the blood of the three of them is called into question, IMO.


You know i agree with that.

[martin II]

What Cochran said about oj and the black community was true.
what vb said on the subject was a lie.

[weezer]

it seems obvious that martin is trying to incite the board with his comments. :punch:

[Hipcheck]

VB.A old used up use to be prosecutor that makes racist comments that no one wants to be bothered with.

j. Cochran . magnificent one,

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.

[weezer]

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.

and may I add, has never done community service for beating his wife, broken windshields and doors in a rage, butchered two human beings, had a drug dealer living in his home and driving his children to school, arrested for road rage, had his young daughter call 911 on him, had a smackdown with his oldest daughter, had his son beat the statute of him with a baseball bat, and wasn't even in prison convicted and sentenced for armed robbery on his 63rd birthday. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

I may be repeating myself, but I don't see VB being racist on the comments about SImpson's commitment to black charities and the black community.

Do you think it is OK for J. Cochran to talk in court about Simpson's commitment to low income blacks, and that both the prosecution and anti Simpson people aren't allowed to refute this arguement? I have some disagreement with Bugliosi on this, but I don't see him as racist. He devoted more of his book to defending the jury against charges of racism and also wrote that the black community had valid complaints about racism on the part of the LAPD.

I think that you should remember that if a word is used too often, it looses it's force, and people ignore it. Look what happens to antibiotics that are used too often.

fgump2,

IMO, race was always going to be an issue in this case, I did not think that two magazine covers were going to be the triggers nor did I think it was going to happen so quickly.

Whatever Johnnie Cochran or any lawyer said in their opening or closing is not evidence. Never did Johnnie Cochran ever even attempt to enter his ties to the black community into evidence and to be honest with you, the DA's didn't. Darden was on Oprah and he was furious with VB and told her that VB wanted to basically for the DA's to tell the jury he wasn't black and that should have mattered.

His ties to the African-American community is not evidence and by VB saying this, he is clearly stating that this should have been entered into evidence. They wanted the jury to weigh these ties or lack of ties to the black community as evidence.

Did Johnnie Cochran want a jury with African-Americans, especially women, yes. However, he no different then any other lawyer who uses a jury consultant, regardless of which side they represent. I am not really sure how I feel about jury consultants other then to admit the truth, I see the need for them---by both sides.

I have never posted this before but I think VB is artfully doing the same thing that he is calling JC out on. By bringing up Simpson's "lack" of blackness, he wanted the jury to be mad at Simpson for marrying a white woman. Bottom line, VB is even more guilty of the "crimes" that he is accusing JC of commiting.

Also, what really bothers me is that many, many celebrities have fans of all colors, ages and gender. Should a celebrity's kindess and charities soley be based on the color of the skin of the people who benefit from this?

VB is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. Did VB come out and write an "Outrage" book regarding the Rodney King Trial? Where was his book of this truly outrageous verdict? Did he go after the DA's in that case?

One thing I will give him credit for, he blames the DA's for the verdict (for the most part) and does not blame the jury. Which, come to think of it, if you agree with VB's book, then you can't blame the jury for the verdict, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I take issue with you calling Vincent Bugliosi old used up use to be prosecutor.

Mr. Bugliosi was a very fine assistant prosecutor who lost just one felony case out of 106.

Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and his family and wrote the book Helter Skelter which is still the all time best selling true crime story selling over 7 million copies.

Mr. Bugliosi also wrote the book Outraged about the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi thought the jury should have been able to read the note that O.J. left before the slow speed chase as he said it reeked of guilt. He also thought the jury should have been told about the items found in the vehicle after this chase such as a change of clothes, large amount of cash, passport and disguise. He also thought the jury should have heard O.J.'s incriminating statement about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi also thought the prosecutors should have went into more detail about the abuse Nicole suffered from O.J..

Mr. Bugliosi is 74 years old and is still writing books and doing a very fine job I must say. Mr. Bugliosiis is far from being an
old used up use to be prosecutor.

Hipcheck,

I don't think anyone has an issue what VB wrote about the DA's in this case, it was his other comments that are being address.

However, apparently, VB was told by the DA's who worked on the case why this wasn't done. No problem that he disagrees but, again, he was not an insider to the case and he doesn't not know all of the "problems" the DA's had, IMO.

[tv]

and may I add, has never done community service for beating his wife, broken windshields and doors in a rage, butchered two human beings, had a drug dealer living in his home and driving his children to school, arrested for road rage, had his young daughter call 911 on him, had a smackdown with his oldest daughter, had his son beat the statute of him with a baseball bat, and wasn't even in prison convicted and sentenced for armed robbery on his 63rd birthday. :shrug:

:beer:

[tv]

it seems obvious that martin is trying to incite the board with his comments. :punch:

I think there's some anger because some people can't refer to the Gs as racists any longer so other means are being used inflame us. :shrug: