Random Discussions On The Case [Archive] - Page 53

weezer

07-24-2009, 01:30 AM

Nicole wrote a letter to cora saying that she was not confortable or did not like the friends that came to her house to see faye.
this letter was posted on the old oj threads and discussed in length by all. and obviously admitted as evidence in at least one of the trials -- right? please post that link.

There is testimony that CR was a little peeved at nicole for not telling him that faye was out of control with her drug use and this came up when nicole talked to friends about setting up the intervention for nicole and that it was CR that forced faye to go to rehab. actually, CR was more than a little peeved at faye -- they weren't living together anymore. that should tell you something. So Nicole put the intervention together but it was CR that made her go to rehab?

OJ testified that at a dinner party faye was out of control and he spoke to her about but she kinda ignored his comments but the others agreed that faye was taking to many pills and that the others at the dinner took the pills from faye.imo don't forget he also testified that he'd never abused her and that the IRS threat letter was only because he was an upright citizen doing right.

it is my opinion that if nicole did not like fays friends comming to her house and she knew faye was out of control with her drug habit that nicole would arrange the intervention which would remove faye from her house and her children. Helloooo -- Nicole did arrange an intervention. This leads me to ask why would nicole allow a active freebaser to do drugs in her house with her two small children in the house.

so sad -- now we've switched trials from faye resnick drug use trial to Nicole Brown allowed a friend to stay with her for 6 days trial.

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:32 AM

Kate,

Who confirmed and proved Faye was telling the truth? What proof do you have how much money she had? How much she spent on drugs? Did her dealer ever testify or talk to the LAPD and confirm that Faye as telling the truth and she did not owe him any money? Did the Jenners, Garverys, her ex-husband give statements to the police backing Faye's version of events up?

Who stepped forward and proved CR was the one person who was lying? He said she worked in his office for about 4 days and had to fire her, before Nicole's murder. What is your proof that he lying and Faye is telling the truth?

Who confirmed Faye's stories?

GI

When a poster believes that some believe her comments are always factual
it is not necessary for that poster to present proof of her claims. The followers just suck it up and pretend it is true.
fay lied about many issues in her deposition.first she said she only spent 20 dollars a day on her out of control habit. then she said she was freebassing heron and tried to play dumb to the fact that she was smoking cocain this lie lasted for about a minute until she was corrected.

it was posted that faye was employed by CR and had a regular job. When in fact CR put her in his office to be able to watch her and this lasted for four days and he fired her.

if faye had the money a poster claimed she had, she could have taken a apartment of her own and not imposed herself on nicole and her kids. i believe faye was dead broke and no place to live.imo

weezer

07-24-2009, 01:33 AM

I don't understand something. I post that OJ Simpson had marijuana in his system at the time of the murders and martin demands I post the tox report. He makes the same claim and then says he's never seen a tox report and is disappointed that I haven't even after I've explained that it's in the trial testimony. What am I missing here? :shrug:

nothing -- martin wants us to ignore the elephant in the room: orenthal james simpson alias The Butcher of Brentwood

weezer

07-24-2009, 01:36 AM

07-24-2009, 01:42 AM

nothing -- martin wants us to ignore the elephant in the room: orenthal james simpson alias The Butcher of Brentwood

It's hard to ignore the elephant when the elephant's DNA is mixed with the DNA of Ron and Nicole and found on a glove behind the elephant's guest house.:tongue:

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:45 AM

07-24-2009, 01:48 AM

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:50 AM

It's hard to ignore the elephant when the elephant's DNA is mixed with the DNA of Ron and Nicole and found on a glove behind the elephant's guest house.:tongue:

it is very difficult for some to understand that blood samples were manipulated in the lab as is evident of how Mazzolas samples were.That is the elephant that was in the courtroom and the jury saw it.

07-24-2009, 01:50 AM

it is very difficult for some to understand that blood samples were manipulated in the lab as is evident of how Mazzolas samples were.That is the elephant that was in the courtroom and the jury saw it.

No proof.

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:56 AM

They'd probably smelled it before when their father was doing it. ;)

what do you think nicole told her children about the smell?

There is no evidence that oj ever freebased cocain in nicoles house or any place around his kids, there is no evidence that oj ever freebased or smoked cocain at anytime. You seem to be just making noise.

would you allow a friend to smoke cocain in your house with your children there?

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:58 AM

No proof.

Mazzola gave the proof in her testimony.

07-24-2009, 02:00 AM

what do you think nicole told her children about the smell?

There is no evidence that oj ever freebased cocain in nicoles house or any place around his kids, there is no evidence that oj ever freebased or smoked cocain at anytime. You seem to be just making noise.

would you allow a friend to smoke cocain in your house with your children there?

There's no evidence that the children ever asked Nicole such a question. :seeya:

martin II

07-24-2009, 05:02 AM

The tox results are in the trial testimony. I'm surprised you'd post a negative about OJ Simpson without doing your homework. As far as my bud goes at least what she posts is based on trial testimony and facts unlike your bud who only posts fantasy and wishful thinking.

Looks like you decided to go down the block and put Faye on trial for drugs after all. You'd think Faye was the killer instead of the Butcher of Brentwood -- OJ Simpson.

tv

thats a fault that you show sometimes. I am not putting faye on trial for anything. Her drug history is what it is.Her testimony is what it is.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 06:24 AM

origionally i got my info about traces from a poster that dissagreed with your buds claim that oj had drugs in his system.i have never seen a post giving oks drug test report and i am a little dissapointed that obviously you havent either.:cool:

Martin,

IMO, do you really think a tox report would be made public? It would just be considered another of long list of perceived failures by the LAPD and SID.

What was Dr. L's reason for testing Nicole or Ron for cocaine or other illegal drugs? "She didn't die of an overdose? It didn't look like a drug related death?". Same thing why a rape kit wasn't done on Nicole, it didn't look like a sexual assault? Dr. Golden said that Nicole's undergarments weren't moved or torn? I wonder how many date rape victims have their underwear torn?

It is obvious they focused on Simpson and only Simpson. Any evidence they gathered that did not point to Simpson was lost or not collected. Allegedly.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 06:33 AM

Nicole wrote a letter to cora saying that she was not confortable or did not like the friends that came to her house to see faye.
this letter was posted on the old oj threads and discussed in length by all.

There is testimony that CR was a little peeved at nicole for not telling him that faye was out of control with her drug use and this came up when nicole talked to friends about setting up the intervention for nicole and that it was CR that forced faye to go to rehab.

OJ testified that at a dinner party faye was out of control and he spoke to her about but she kinda ignored his comments but the others agreed that faye was taking to many pills and that the others at the dinner took the pills from faye.imo

it is my opinion that if nicole did not like fays friends comming to her house and she knew faye was out of control with her drug habit that nicole would arrange the intervention which would remove faye from her house and her children.This leads me to ask why would nicole allow a active freebaser to do drugs in her house with her two small children in the house.

Martin,

It appears to me that Nicole was a much better friend to Faye the Faye was to her. I am sure that Nicole knew that Faye truly had no place to go and perhaps Nicole was waiting for that friend of Faye's to come and get her. I think her name was Kathy LaRouche or something like that.

Nicole would not be the first person to underestimate a friends drug problem and/or involvement in the drug world. I never knew about the letter Nicole wrote Faye and I can't say that I am not surprised that information is not well known. Just like no one showed no interest in the fight and crying Nicole was involved on that night. Again, IMO.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 06:39 AM

GI

When a poster believes that some believe her comments are always factual
it is not necessary for that poster to present proof of her claims. The followers just suck it up and pretend it is true.
fay lied about many issues in her deposition.first she said she only spent 20 dollars a day on her out of control habit. then she said she was freebassing heron and tried to play dumb to the fact that she was smoking cocain this lie lasted for about a minute until she was corrected.

it was posted that faye was employed by CR and had a regular job. When in fact CR put her in his office to be able to watch her and this lasted for four days and he fired her.

if faye had the money a poster claimed she had, she could have taken a apartment of her own and not imposed herself on nicole and her kids. i believe faye was dead broke and no place to live.imo

Martin,

Like posted, not one G has provided any proof that what Faye has said about her drug abuse as well as her monies as well as what she said about Nicole's drug abuse was true.

I find it remarkable that anyone would believe that Faye would not only tell the truth on this issue but that she would write a book and tell the world not only did she gave the name but also the profession of her $20.00 a day drug dealer.

I may be wrong, but if you a drug dealer selling cocaine, are you really going to be in business on these small sales? Wouldn't that mean you would have to keep large amount quanties on hand for this "nickel and dime" deals? Isn't there serious risks in being a drug dealer? Or maybe it was just thrill of it for this real estate broker to be a part time drug dealer. I wonder what he told the police? Any information on that?

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:27 AM

Martin,

IMO, do you really think a tox report would be made public? It would just be considered another of long list of perceived failures by the LAPD and SID.

What was Dr. L's reason for testing Nicole or Ron for cocaine or other illegal drugs? "She didn't die of an overdose? It didn't look like a drug related death?". Same thing why a rape kit wasn't done on Nicole, it didn't look like a sexual assault? Dr. Golden said that Nicole's undergarments weren't moved or torn? I wonder how many date rape victims have their underwear torn?

It is obvious they focused on Simpson and only Simpson. Any evidence they gathered that did not point to Simpson was lost or not collected. Allegedly.

Thats very true.

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:35 AM

Martin,

Like posted, not one G has provided any proof that what Faye has said about her drug abuse as well as her monies as well as what she said about Nicole's drug abuse was true.

I find it remarkable that anyone would believe that Faye would not only tell the truth on this issue but that she would write a book and tell the world not only did she gave the name but also the profession of her $20.00 a day drug dealer.

I may be wrong, but if you a drug dealer selling cocaine, are you really going to be in business on these small sales? Wouldn't that mean you would have to keep large amount quanties on hand for this "nickel and dime" deals? Isn't there serious risks in being a drug dealer? Or maybe it was just thrill of it for this real estate broker to be a part time drug dealer. I wonder what he told the police? Any information on that?

i have no info on the drug dealer but i know faye lied about freebasing $20.00 a day

CR
Faye worked at his office two half days per week and was fired shortly after a few days. He also testified when she was living with him she was getting high and he kicked her out. So contrary to what some believe that faye was only getting high for the days she lived at nicoles, his testimony proves she was getting high at his place and she took her habit to nicoles.

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:49 AM

Martin,

It appears to me that Nicole was a much better friend to Faye the Faye was to her. I am sure that Nicole knew that Faye truly had no place to go and perhaps Nicole was waiting for that friend of Faye's to come and get her. I think her name was Kathy LaRouche or something like that.

Nicole would not be the first person to underestimate a friends drug problem and/or involvement in the drug world. I never knew about the letter Nicole wrote Faye and I can't say that I am not surprised that information is not well known. Just like no one showed no interest in the fight and crying Nicole was involved on that night. Again, IMO.

nicole wrote that letter to cora not faye.

look, faye a active coke addict played nicole when CR kicked her out.Nicole was just trying to be a friend and believed faye when she indicated it would be just a day or two. i guess Kathy LaROACH didn't want that coke head in her house either.

After nicole helped faye faye put her business in the streets by telling Cora that she and nicole had a lesbian relationship and that nicole had freebased coke with her. what a friend.

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:56 AM

CR TESTIMONY
Setting the record straight.

A: The next point was that I saw how, like I say, information was misconstrued, manipulated. Another point is a jury verdict. You know, the jury put out a verdict of his innocence.

Q: But you were convinced of these things before the jury verdict.

A: The jury verdict absolutely reconfirmed what I was thinking before.

Q: Tell me about the second point, concerning the information that was manipulated and misconstrued, and be as specific as you can.

A: In the weeks after the murder it was put forward how supposedly Mr. Simpson was pursuing Nicole, and I know for a fact that it not to be true. O.J. and I at the time starting approximately - well, not approximately. I could tell you exact time was after the trip to Cabo San Lucas on Easter, we had many conversations that the relationships we were in were not healthy and that we needed to get out of these relationships.

And I know for a fact that there were many times where Nicole or Faye were pursuing their respective partners, and O.J. and I would talk later throughout the day and compare notes in the sense of how both Nicole and Faye were trying to do the same thing at the separate households.

There were times I would call O.J. up and say, "Oh, my God, I can't believe it. Faye came back and today says that in order for her to feel safe, she wants me to buy her a new car, you know."

And O.J. would laugh and say something like, "This is what happened today: Nicole came back and said very much the same thing."

Not that she wanted a new car, but that she needed to have some token of his affection to feel safe. And I know for a fact that, you know, both O.J. and I were contemplating and talking about needing to getting out of our respective relationships.

Q: Contemplating what?

A: How to get out of our relationships, which I think O.J. was more successful than I in the moment when he connected back with Paula Barbieri and he started to go on with his life. He started to go on and live his life again with the knowledge that he doesn't want to work it out with Nicole.

I remember a specific conversation. I don't recall the date, but it was in the - probably a week and a half or so after my birthday -

Q: Which is?

A: April 28th. - that O.J. said that, you know, he had - him and I had a conversation a year ago when Nicole and him first got back together, and he said, "I'm gonna give this one year, and if it doesn't work, then I just can't do it."

And so in the conversation about a week and a half or so after my birthday, that was exactly the conversation we had, is that he said, "It's been a year and it's not changing. It's not getting any better," and I think a few days later he saw Paula Barbieri and reconciled with her.

Q: Anything more?

A: As to -

Q: This issue about O.J. Simpson not pursuing Nicole.

A: Specific incident where - actually it was on the way to the meeting to Playboy, which is in my day-timer. It's in March sometime -

Q: You want to look at that right now just so we don' t guess about that date?

A: Yeah. That O.J. and I were driving to the meeting -

Q: Hold on. Look at the date first.

A: March 21st. March 21st, a Monday.

MR.PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect the witness is referring to his planner, which we will mark as the next exhibit in order at a break, which will be Exhibit 167.

Q: Please continue, Mr. Reichardt.

A: Thank you. We were driving in the car, and Cathy Randa called, saying how Nicole was trying frantically to reach O.J., and O.J. said, "I'm on my way to a meeting with Christian. I don't want to talk to her now." And he said, "Don't tell her I'm in the car,"

and that was it.

So, you know, the frame of mind that he was in at that time was not the, as he has been described, as the jealous person pursuing Nicole. I happen to know for a fact that he and I at the time were definitely disengaging from our respective relationships.

And there was a third person who knew about that, which was Ron Fischman, who was going through a very similar thing with his wife, and so the three of us sometimes would talk about how we do not feel that the relationships are working out and the difficulties on how to get away from the relationship.

Q: So what you're saying is that based on your knowledge, O.J. Simpson was trying to get out of his relationship with Nicole. Correct?

A: Well, he - and he did. He was successful, in my opinion, probably about four weeks prior to the murders.

Q: You're sure that O.J. Simpson wanted to get out of his relationship with Nicole?

A: Absolutely.

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:59 AM

Q: You're sure he wanted to see that relationship come to an end?

A: Yes.

Q: And O.J. Simpson told you that. Right?

A: Yeah, well, we talked about it quite a bit in those three months.

Q: And he told you that. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: In fact, as you just said, you talked about it "quite a bit." Right?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Over - you have to answer audibly.

A: Yes.

Q: Over a number of months. Right?

A: That's correct.

Q: And O.J. Simpson was unhappy in that relationship with Nicole. Correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Would you flatly deny that it was Nicole who dumped O.J. Simpson in that relationship at the very end?

MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

MR. RUBALCAVA: For clarification, can you specify as to when? Because I - if I'm not mistaken -

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Let me withdraw the question. Okay?

Q: At any time in the last three months of Nicole's life, is it true that Nicole rejected O.J. Simpson and said, "I am ending the relationship, not you"? Is that true?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE WITNESS: I don't quite - I don't think it could be answered with yes or no.

MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Why not? You just told me O.J. Simpson ended the relationship, and I am telling you that the opposite may be true. Okay? And I am now going to probe on that, and I would like you to tell me if you know of any information that what you just told me is false and

that in fact it was Nicole Brown Simpson who told O.J. Simpson, "I am ending

the relationship with you, not the other way around." Is that true?

A: So you're asking whether I know any information that negates - I'm trying to clarify the question -

Q: Yes, yes, yes.

A: - that you're asking. I think at the time they both went through times of wanting to be together, not wanting to be together -

Q: My question was limited to the time frame that you were referring to in your prior narrative answer: The last several months.

A: Yeah, I think that they went back and forth for a period of time, and then about four weeks or so before the murders O.J. went back with Paula.

Q: Okay. Let's focus on the last time they broke up, which you say was four weeks before the murders.

A: Yeah.

Q: True?

A: This was when O.J. started seeing Paula again, yes.

Q: Let's focus on that breakup. You have that in mind?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: You have to answer audibly.

A: Yes.

Q: Now, that to your knowledge was the last time O.J. Simpson and Nicole broke up. True?

A: Yes.

Q: And is what you are saying that it was O.J. Simpson who ended that relationship with Nicole -

A: That's correct.

Q: - not the other way around. True? -

---------------------------------

Q: And is what you are saying that it was O.J. Simpson who ended that relationship with Nicole -

A: That's correct.

Q: - not the other way around. True?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: And so anyone who would say that Nicole ended that relationship would be lying. True?

A: Yes.

Q: And you know that it was O.J. Simpson who ended the relationship for the last time because O.J. Simpson told you that. Right?

A: That's correct. At that time.

Q: At that time.

A: He told me at that time.

Q: And you believe now and since Nicole's murder, that that fact has been misstated. True?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you believe that rather than the true fact of O.J. Simpson ending the relationship being portrayed, what is being said is that it was Nicole who ended it and O.J. was pursuing her to change her mind. True?

A: Yeah.

Q: And you think that's false.

A: That Nicole - yes.

Q: And what does any of that have to do with your telling me that O.J.'s innocent?

A: Well, I think he has been portrayed as the jealous ex-husband, and I don't think that that was the fact.

Q: You don't think O.J.-

A: As it has been portrayed.

Q: You don't think OJ. was jealous in the last month because you think it was he, not Nicole, who wanted to stop the relationship. Right?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you think O.J. Simpson was free and happy and content to be out of that relationship. True?

A: Yes. Much more freer and content than he had been in a while.

Q: And O.J. Simpson told you those feelings. Right?

A: Yeah.

Q: In conversations that you had with him at the time.

A: That's correct.

Q: And has he reaffirmed those feelings to you in your many conversations since then?

A: Yes.

.

martin II

07-24-2009, 08:31 AM

There's no evidence that the children ever asked Nicole such a question. :seeya:

i would be willing to wager they did. it is not a smell that anyone can ignore.

weezer

07-24-2009, 08:42 AM

i don't think any clear thinking mother would allow a person to be smoking cocain in her house with two small children in the house.

i wonder what nicole told her children when they asked where was that funky smell in the house was comming from. hahaha

not sure why anyone would think it funny for any child to be in that environment. But alas, there is no proof that what martin has posted even comes close to the truth.

Lange, March 8

Q: IN THAT REGARD, SIR, YOU INDICATED -- DO YOU RECALL INDICATING TO MR. COCHRAN THAT THERE WERE SUPERFICIAL INQUIRIES MADE CONCERNING THE TOPIC OF WHETHER OR NOT DRUGS WERE INVOLVED IN THESE MURDERS? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHAT YOU MEAN BY SUPERFICIAL INQUIRY?

A: CHECKING THE LOCATION FOR DRUG DEBRIS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, FOR WEAPONS PERHAPS, FOR ANY -- ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE NARCOTICS ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM OR THE SUSPECTS.

Q: AND SO WAS THAT AN EXAMINATION THAT YOU MADE AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS -- WAS THE CONDOMINIUM -- WAS MISS BROWN'S CONDOMINIUM EXAMINED BY POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: WERE -- WAS THERE ANY DRUGS FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THERE ANY PARAPHERNALIA FOR DRUGS FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: ANY SCALES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

A: NO.

Q: ANY PARAPHERNALIA FOR THE USAGE OF COCAINE?

A: NO.

Q: OR MARIJUANA?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU FIND ANY WRITINGS IN THE WAY OF PAY AND OWE SHEETS CONCERNING MONIES TO BE PAID FOR A KILO OF THIS OR A GRAM OF THAT?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: WAS ANY MATERIAL LIKE THAT EVER FOUND IN THE APARTMENT -- THE CONDOMINIUM THAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU LATER?

A: NO.

martin II

07-24-2009, 10:04 AM

tv

As A medical professional and considering HEPA would the coronors office be able to release ojs or any persons drug screen report to the public without a signed release. in your opinion.

weezer

07-24-2009, 10:16 AM

tv

As A medical professional and considering HEPA would the coronors office be able to release ojs or any persons drug screen report to the public without a signed release. in your opinion.

I don't believe tv is going to know what HEPA (isn't that a filter on vaccum cleaners?) has to do with release of drug screen reports to the public.

weezer

07-24-2009, 10:18 AM

i would be willing to wager they did. it is not a smell that anyone can ignore.

OT -- martin, what do you use to remove the smell?

07-24-2009, 10:35 AM

tv

As A medical professional and considering HEPA would the coronors office be able to release ojs or any persons drug screen report to the public without a signed release. in your opinion.

I don't have a clue but it came out in the trial so it really doesn't matter. Seems to me it would be evidence in the trial which was public. :shrug:

07-24-2009, 10:44 AM

tv

thats a fault that you show sometimes. I am not putting faye on trial for anything. Her drug history is what it is.Her testimony is what it is.

IMO, you like to talk about Faye because it gives you a reason to put Nicole in a bad light. Faye's drug abuse has never been shown to have anything to do with the murders. That's a fact.

martin II

07-24-2009, 10:47 AM

I don't have a clue but it came out in the trial so it really doesn't matter. Seems to me it would be evidence in the trial which was public. :shrug:

i am just asking for general info purposes and knew you would be involved in HIPPA as a health care professional. a
In another case a nurse gave her patients medical records to le without a signed release from the patient and i was told she violated HIPPA..i don't know.
tv it should be HIPPA
SORRY

07-24-2009, 10:49 AM

i am just asking for general info purposes and knew you would be involved in HEPA as a health care professional. a
In another case a nurse gave her patients medical records to le without a signed release from the patient and i was told she violated HEPA.i don't know.

Of course I can't release health care records. This is a different situation -- OJ Simpson's toxicology screen would be a part of trial testimony.

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 11:33 AM

Was HIPPA in place in 1995? I don't know, but I don't think it applies here for cryin out loud.

07-24-2009, 12:37 PM

Was HIPPA in place in 1995? I don't know, but I don't think it applies here for cryin out loud.

HIPAA was enacted in 1996 I believe and wasn't intended for this purpose -- at least as I understand it.

martin II

07-24-2009, 12:57 PM

Of course I can't release health care records. This is a different situation -- OJ Simpson's toxicology screen would be a part of trial testimony.

this has nothing to do with oj
i was trying to get your opinion if hippa law must be respected by the courts.

07-24-2009, 01:06 PM

this has nothing to do with oj
i was trying to get your opinion if hippa law must be respected by the courts.

IMO, all laws need to be respected by the court unless there's an exception to the law or circumstances dictate otherwise. Now, what is this about?

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:07 PM

HIPAA was enacted in 1996 I believe and wasn't intended for this purpose -- at least as I understand it.

ok
thanks

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:15 PM

IMO, all laws need to be respected by the court unless there's an exception to the law or circumstances dictate otherwise. Now, what is this about?

this is not about oj

a nurse gave a patients medical records to a ME without the patients concent. no release was signed. i am trying to understand if this is a violation of the HIPPA law.

martin II

07-24-2009, 01:19 PM

IMO, you like to talk about Faye because it gives you a reason to put Nicole in a bad light. Faye's drug abuse has never been shown to have anything to do with the murders. That's a fact.

NOT TRUE.
I talk about faye because of the kind of person she is as opposed to who she tried to tell the public who she was.

07-24-2009, 01:21 PM

this is not about oj

a nurse gave a patients medical records to a ME without the patients concent. no release was signed. i am trying to understand if this is a violation of the HIPPA law.

Maybe the ME had a right to the records. Maybe a release was signed that covered whoever had a need to know. It would probably take a lawyer reviewing the specific case to know if there was a possible violation.

07-24-2009, 01:23 PM

NOT TRUE.
I talk about faye because of the kind of person she is as opposed to who she tried to tell the public who she was.

I think we all know what kind of person Faye was. The one thing that she did say that is relevant, and Christian Reichardt verified, is that OJ Simpson threatened to kill Nicole.

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 01:56 PM

this is not about oj

a nurse gave a patients medical records to a ME without the patients concent. no release was signed. i am trying to understand if this is a violation of the HIPPA law.

Doesn't a ME only deal with the deceased? If so, certain privacy rights end when the person dies IIRC.

martin II

07-24-2009, 02:05 PM

Maybe the ME had a right to the records. Maybe a release was signed that covered whoever had a need to know. It would probably take a lawyer reviewing the specific case to know if there was a possible violation.

HIPPA is quite clear no medical records can be released without a signed release by the patient. i believe the nurse would be involation if she gave the medical records without a release.

thanks for your opinion.

ps the patient is now dead.

martin II

07-24-2009, 02:09 PM

I think we all know what kind of person Faye was. The one thing that she did say that is relevant, and Christian Reichardt verified, is that OJ Simpson threatened to kill Nicole.

you did read my post where CR said he believed oj was not guilty.

CR said that is what faye said oj told her. another faye lie.

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 02:13 PM

you did read my post where CR said he believed oj was not guilty.

CR said that is what faye said oj told her. another faye lie.

Cochran & Sharpiro knew a lot more about the murders than CR & they knew he was guilty ;)

eta: Were they "liars" like Faye?

fgump2

07-24-2009, 02:43 PM

you did read my post where CR said he believed oj was not guilty.

CR said that is what faye said oj told her. another faye lie.
It is easy to say that Faye was lying, but if so it was an odd coincidence that she made up the lie before Nicole was killed. Also a coincidence that an Orenthal supporter, CR, remember this statement.

The NG's have a pattern of ignoring things that indicate OJS was guilty. I agree that Faye probably did tell some lies. For one thing she sometimes had a drug problem, prossibly not as bad as some have written, but most addicts are dishonest.
Nicole told various people that she thought Orenthal would kill her: Faye, Kato, her theapist - Susan Forward, and Kris Jenner. I think there were others as well.
So we have evidence that Nicole thought Orenthal would kill her, and that Orenthal talked about killing her.

Suppose I had a friend living in a low crime neighborhood who kept predicting that a former husband would kill her, and then the fried was killed in a manner similar to what she predicted. I would then think that there was a good chance that the former husband did it, and also that the police should take a good hard look at it even if there is some evidence the former husband might be innocent.

As far as I can tell the NGs expect me and others to think Orenthal couldn't have done it because of minor problems with the time lines. These problems on the time lines exist because some of the people weren't asked about their memories of things until 24 or more hours later. I think none of the witnesses realized that the time lines were important till at least 12 hours later. Under these circumstances, a 10 minute innacuracy isn't suprising.

martin II

07-24-2009, 03:47 PM

martin II

07-24-2009, 04:07 PM

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 04:17 PM

martin II

07-24-2009, 04:46 PM

martin II

07-24-2009, 04:56 PM

I think we all know what kind of person Faye was. The one thing that she did say that is relevant, and Christian Reichardt verified, is that OJ Simpson threatened to kill Nicole.

almost true but not 100%

CR never confirmed that oj told him that he was going to kill nicole.
faye saying that is just another coke damaged brain making noise.

weezer

07-24-2009, 04:59 PM

None of this has anything to do with the case. Just another opportunity to bash anyone who isn't Simpson or one of his supporters. imo

It looks like Martin thinks that people are either 100% truthful or 100% deceitful. Doesn't he realize that's not the case with 99.9 percent of the population? :shrug:

Wasn't the "lesbian" encounter a one time thing? I don't think Faye ever said they had a "lesbian relationship".

Does this mean that now we can talk about the rumor of OJ's Dad been gay? :)

the NGs cherry pick -- and more often than not, take out of context -- which part of the testimony/evidence they want to say is fact/truth. If martin believes the parts of fayes testimony that puts Nicole in what he believes is a bad light, then he also must accept faye's and CR's testimony that orenthal told faye he was going to kill Nicole.

it wasn't a rumor that orenthal's dad was gay: Newsweek magazine issue dated Jan 23, 1995 : "The prosecution contends, for instance, that in Hawaii Simpson once beat Nicole because she let a gay man kiss her baby son Justin. But Uelmen maintained that Nicole and O.J. argued only after Nicole called O.J.'s gay father a "fag."

martin II

07-24-2009, 05:02 PM

Q: Okay. And I take it your point about his physical condition is that he was not - he was so physically disabled that he was - that it was impossible for him to have killed anyone. Is that true?

A: Yeah. In those - in that particular fashion as those murders occurred, yeah, I think it was - he is physically not capable of doing it.

Q: Would you say that he's crippled?

A: Close.

Q: Close to crippled?

A: He's got some major disabilities.

Q: Have you consulted with any physician of O.J. Simpson's concerning his physical condition?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever been asked to?

A: No.

Q: Have you discussed with Mr. Simpson what treatment he is undergoing for his near-crippled condition?

A: At that time prior to the murders?

Q: Yes, prior to the murders. What is that?

A: Yeah, we had talked about changing his diet and start an exercise program and stretching program would be the appropriate way to give him some more flexibility in his

lower extremities.

Q: Changing diet and stretching program.

A: Uh-huh.

Q: You have to answer audibly.

A: Yes.

Q: And when did you recommend that those things begin?

A: Starting in the fall of '93.

Q: Is that when you started to treat him?

A: Yeah.

Q: And that treatment went through the murders on June 12, and you say during that time you may have treated him three or four times?

A: That's correct.

Q: Do you know whether he did in fact change his diet at your recommendation?

A: Yeah. he started to, and he started taking a supplement.

Q: What kind of supplement?

A: Called Juice Plus.

Q: Was that your idea, that he go on Juice Plus?

A: No, but it was my idea that he start a nutritional supplement program, and then he found the company Juice Plus. I reviewed it and said, "Yes, that looks good to me."

Q: Did that involve taking vitamins?

A: Right.

Q: Did it also involve what food he would eat?

A: Yeah.

Q: What kind of food did you recommend that he eat to improve his condition?

A: Basically recommended for him to stay away from red meat, eat more raw veggies and fruit.

Q: Do you know whether he tried to comply with that?

A: At least when I was around.

Q: Okay. By "red meat," that would also include McDonald's hamburgers, I take it. True?

A: Yeah.

Q: Stretching program. Do you know whether he began to do the stretches that you suggested?

A: I didn't see him make very much progress with his legs, so I assume that he didn't do the stretches. And I asked him and he said, "Well, you know how it goes. You're traveling a lot." And so whenever-you know, over the three or four times that we would get together, I would stretch him out, I would show him more stretches to do, but I don't really believe that he really followed up on doing that.

Q: Is that what he told you?

A: No. I said what I would find when I would treat him again, that it hasn't really changed much.

Q: The last time you treated him, though, was a month or two before -

A: Right.

Q: - June 12. Right?

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:02 PM

very interesting article with great insight:

Was O. J. Simpson a Victim of His Own Mental Illness?

by Ralph Barrera, Sep 8, 2008

I was an L.A.P.D. Sergeant at the time that O. J. Simpson was arrested and tried for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. In my paper I describe how he may have an undiagnosed Axis II Personality Disorder listed as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In rare situations in can result in psychosis and actions which may have led to murders.

Orenthal James Simpson, commonly known as O.J., was a frequent focus of media attention for many years while he was playing football at the University of Southern California, and then in the National Football League. He was comfortable with his celebrity status and pursued a professional life being in front of the cameras, as an actor, and as a sportscaster for NBC (Gilbert, 2008). He experienced a difficult childhood as evidenced by his low socio-economic status, participation in criminal activity, and his being raised by a single mother due to his “father declaring himself to be an openly gay man in San Francisco” (Gilbert, 2008, p. 14). What was not visible to fans was the psychopathology that existed within the mind of O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson meets the criteria for the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (DSM 301.81) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (DSM 301.7) (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2000). The Narcissistic Personality Disorder may have been a contributing factor in the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson. Society watched as O.J. Simpson's trial unfolded “as the first trial of the digital century” (Lewis, 1995). Viewers became the most media exposed and most information savvy spectators of any criminal trial in the history of the United States. Division among viewers became evident as groups differed in their opinions of guilt or innocence seemingly along racial lines (Gilbert, 2008).

There is no question that O.J. Simpson was successful both on the football field and in front on the camera. O.J. was awarded the Heisman Trophy in 1968 for being the most outstanding college football player of the year and was subsequently drafted into the National Football League (NFL) in the first draft. O.J. went on to play 11 seasons as a running back in the NFL and was inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame in 1985 (National Football League Enterprises, n.d.). His football popularity led to a career in television and cinema that he started by portraying a student in a 1968 episode of Dragnet. He appeared in 28 television and movie roles, which included the popular mini-series, Roots. O.J. was a television Executive Producer and his last acting role was in Naked Gun 33 1/3:The Final Insult, in 1994(Internet Movie Database, 2008). O.J. Simpson's accomplishments on the field and on the set combined to create a persona in the public eye who was idolized and adored.

The public did not have the opportunity to observe O.J.'s childhood Mike Gilbert, was O.J. Simpson's former sports agent and friend and in his book, How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder, wrote that O.J. grew up “in a rough neighborhood, Potrero Hill in San Francisco,” where he ran with street gangs and “had numerous run-ins with the police as a teen.” Eunice Simpson, a single mother raised O.J. after his father came out as an openly gay man and remained in the neighborhood (Gilbert, 2008). O.J. also had rickets, a disease of malnutrition, and had to walk around for hours every day in iron braces for his skinny bowlegs (Gilbert, 2008). Gilbert states that O.J. came from an environment of strong, churchgoing, disciplinary women. “He both depended upon and raged against women's power. His greatest terror was to be abandoned” (Gilbert, 2008, p. 14).

When O.J. Simpson met Nicole Brown, he was unhappy in his marriage to his first wife, Marguerite, who was pregnant with their third child. O.J. claimed that Marguerite had tricked him with that pregnancy and Gilbert describes these beliefs as being indicative of O.J. Simpson's immaturity and narcissism (Gilbert, 2008, p. 102). It was reported that when Marguerite was married to O.J. she made calls to the police and was frequently observed with bruises and wearing sunglasses regardless of the lighting conditions (Gilbert, 2008, p. 102). Gilbert writes that it took him many years to realize that O.J. Simpson had no empathy for any other human being. Gilbert states that in the years after Nicole Brown Simpson's death, he never “once heard O.J. express grief over her death, or empathy for her suffering or horror over what happened to her” (Gilbert, 2008). Mike Gilbert writes that he did hear O.J. tell jokes about Nicole's death. One time in jail, O.J. asked Mike Gilbert to check the horoscope, and as he did so, O.J. stated to Mike, “Check Taurus. Does it say "Hey, I"m dead'?” Nicole Brown Simpson was a Taurus (Gilbert, 2008). By lacking empathy, having a grandiose sense of self-importance, requiring excessive admiration, being interpersonally exploitative, and showing arrogant and haughty behaviors, O.J. meets the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). There are numerous examples of O.J. Simpson's “fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love” (APA, 2000, p. 714), within the pages of Mike Gilbert's book, which support the diagnosis of NPD. . ."

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:03 PM

Was O. J. Simpson a Victim of His Own Mental Illness?

by Ralph Barrera, Sep 8, 2008

(contd.)

The diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) has high validity in the case of O.J. Simpson. The early symptoms are not available but the signs are clearly evident. The evidence of Conduct Disorder before age 15 is demonstrated by O.J. having participated in the activities of street gangs and it is evident that the psychopathology of Antisocial Personality Disorder was in place when it is reputed that O.J. developed his great running and visualization skills when he had to run through gunfire from young people in the street. The diagnostic criteria that O.J. Simpson appears to meet for a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder are: “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; and lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another” (APA, 2000, p. 706). Committing the crime of domestic violence against his first wife and then against Nicole Brown Simpson and demonstrating lack of remorse and indifference are consistent with the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Both the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder are categorized as Cluster B Personality Disorders; “Individuals with these disorders often appear dramatic, emotional, or erratic” (APA, 2000, p. 685). Maxem & Ward also write that few patients with NPD become psychotic but they can and do undergo brief psychotic episodes (Maxem & Ward, 1995, p. 401). On the night that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson, he may have been undergoing a psychotic episode triggered by the circumstances described in Michael Gilbert's version of the events described in his book. Gilbert very clearly quotes what can be described as a veiled confession by O.J. Simpson that he killed Nicole.

The societal impact of the case against O.J. Simpson is an academic one at best. What became clearly evident to individuals experiencing the drama unfold in the courtroom via live television coverage, 24 hour news coverage on CNN, Internet sites, magazine coverage, daily newspaper accounts, and radio coverage, is that they had more information available to them regarding this case than any other case in world history. At the time of the trial, the media referred to the case as “The Trial of the Century” (Lewis, 1995). The trial was in fact “the first trial of the digital century” (Lewis, 1995). The massive coverage of the trial opened dialogue regarding race relations in America, and though many individuals became polarized on the question of O.J. Simpson's innocence or guilt, frequently along racial allegiances, an awareness of the state of racial affairs in the nation was up for discussion. The artist, Colin Quashie, expressed the tensions between the races over the O.J. Simpson verdict in a very irreverent manner by creating a coloring book. In it he writes “O.J. Simpson was awarded many trophies during his career. His favorites were the Heisman and Nicole Brown” (Quashi, 2008).

O.J. Simpson very nearly symbolized what it meant to achieve the American dream. Simpson did not outgrow his personal roots, which took hold during his youth on the streets of San Francisco. The psychopathology of NPD is difficult to treat; ASPD has no known treatment. O.J. Simpson did seek help for what may have been depression. He was reportedly being treated with Prozac at the time that Nicole was murdered (Gilbert, 2008). His Dream Team Defense, the best attorneys that money could buy, typified what an individual with NPD would require to represent him. In the case of O.J. Simpson the tactic worked. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Simpson has a destiny of having to live with himself, undiagnosed, as the world is awaiting his pending trial for a robbery in Las Vegas. The trial is set for September 2008.

martin II

07-24-2009, 05:05 PM

A: Yes.

Q: So you don't know what he did by way of stretching for the whole month of May.

A: That's correct.

Q: And the first two weeks of June.

A: That's correct.

Q: Did you advise - give Mr. Simpson any advice about whether he should play golf?

A: Golf didn't seem to bother him, didn't seem to aggravate it.

Q: So the answer is no?

A: No.

Q: Did you advise Mr. Simpson that he shouldn't participate in any strenuous exercise?

A: No. I think it's pretty much self-explanatory to him that if you do anything that was too much, that he would hurt the next day.

Q: So it wasn't that it was impossible to do strenuous things; it was that it would hurt if he did so. True?

A: Yeah. And, you know, certain activities

A: Yeah. And, you know, certain activities I would assume would be impossible for him to do. Like seeing him walking down stairs, you see somebody walking down the stairs hardly able to do it and having to support his body, you know, it's like I said, I would assume in putting him on a chair and having him jump down, he couldn't do it.

Q: Now, what aspects of the murders of Ron and Nicole do you think it would have been physically impossible, based on your judgment, for Mr. Simpson to perform?

A: Well, as I understand, there must have been a fight, two people on a relatively close, small area. If you know a little bit about martial arts, that's quite a task, you know.

Q: What is quite a task?

A: To combat two opponents in a small space. If you know something about martial arts, you know, there must be twisting, turning, you know. So I don't think that he would be able to do that.

Q: Is it you believe that Nicole Brown Simpson was an opponent like a martial arts opponent? Is that what you're suggesting?

A: No. I'm suggesting, from what I understand of how the murders occurred, that there was a struggle, and as in any kind of struggle in a small space involving three people, it takes a lot of physical movement. I talked to a friend of mine who was a martial artist, and he said, "Yeah, it would be very difficult to move in a small space like that against two people."

.

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 05:06 PM

Martin, you should identify the testimony that you have posted.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 05:10 PM

nicole wrote that letter to cora not faye.

look, faye a active coke addict played nicole when CR kicked her out.Nicole was just trying to be a friend and believed faye when she indicated it would be just a day or two. i guess Kathy LaROACH didn't want that coke head in her house either.

After nicole helped faye faye put her business in the streets by telling Cora that she and nicole had a lesbian relationship and that nicole had freebased coke with her. what a friend.

Martin,

Sorry,

Meant to say to Cora, not Faye. I do not believe Faye was ever a true friend of Nicole's. I also believe that when someone slips back into addiction, they only friend they want and need is the drug. How they get it, who they hurt or lie to do get it, doesn't matter, the only friend that matters is the drug, IMO.

Nicole told Cora about the "affair" and I guess Faye was very, very surprised. If Faye was a true a friend, she would have made sure she testified first before writing the book and she never would have included the details that were so hurtful to the Browns and her children as well as other friends of Nicole.

However, it never made any sense to me why the DA's would use Faye's book as their blue print for their case. Faye's book came out how many months after the murders and after it came out, they couldn't bring one witness to testify to what Faye alleged?

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 05:16 PM

*snip*
Gilbert writes that it took him many years to realize that O.J. Simpson had no empathy for any other human being. Gilbert states that in the years after Nicole Brown Simpson's death, he never “once heard O.J. express grief over her death, or empathy for her suffering or horror over what happened to her” (Gilbert, 2008). Mike Gilbert writes that he did hear O.J. tell jokes about Nicole's death. One time in jail, O.J. asked Mike Gilbert to check the horoscope, and as he did so, O.J. stated to Mike, “Check Taurus. Does it say "Hey, I"m dead'?” Nicole Brown Simpson was a Taurus (Gilbert, 2008).

I've heard many people say he never expressed any grief & that included the therapist that the defense lawyer hired right after the murders. If he wasn't the murderer, this makes no sense. Anyone else would have grieved her loss, even an ex.

martin II

07-24-2009, 05:24 PM

07-24-2009, 05:27 PM

Martin, you should identify the testimony that you have posted.

If this is Dr. Huizenga he should also include the part where the doctor admits OJ Simpson could have committed the murders.

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:28 PM

Martin,

Sorry,

Meant to say to Cora, not Faye. I do not believe Faye was ever a true friend of Nicole's. agreed I also believe that when someone slips back into addiction, they only friend they want and need is the drug. How they get it, who they hurt or lie to do get it, doesn't matter, the only friend that matters is the drug, IMO.

Nicole told Cora about the "affair" faye details in her book a lesbian encounter with Nicole. whether or not this ever actually happened has never been supported. and I guess Faye was very, very surprised. IIRC, it was faye that told cora -- not Nicole that told cora. Personally, I think this is more rhetoric -- like Nicole smoking dope during the 6 days faye lived with her and which has been proven not to be true.If Faye was a true a friend, she would have made sure she testified first before writing the book and she never would have included the details that were so hurtful to the Browns and her children as well as other friends of Nicole. agreed

However, it never made any sense to me why the DA's would use Faye's book as their blue print for their case. they didn'tFaye's book came out how many months after the murders and after it came out, they couldn't bring one witness to testify to what Faye alleged?

the DA's used the evidence and testimony of people relevant to the case. IIRC, they felt faye was not credible.

07-24-2009, 05:29 PM

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:31 PM

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:33 PM

martin, weezer posted an article. She did not call OJ Simpson's father a 'fag'. This is insulting another poster.

I love the part where martin states that it was my idea that orenthal's father was gay -- LOL -- like I woke up one morning and BAM! the thought came to me. :D

martin II

07-24-2009, 05:35 PM

Martin,

Sorry,

Meant to say to Cora, not Faye. I do not believe Faye was ever a true friend of Nicole's. I also believe that when someone slips back into addiction, they only friend they want and need is the drug. How they get it, who they hurt or lie to do get it, doesn't matter, the only friend that matters is the drug, IMO.

Nicole told Cora about the "affair" and I guess Faye was very, very surprised. If Faye was a true a friend, she would have made sure she testified first before writing the book and she never would have included the details that were so hurtful to the Browns and her children as well as other friends of Nicole.

However, it never made any sense to me why the DA's would use Faye's book as their blue print for their case. Faye's book came out how many months after the murders and after it came out, they couldn't bring one witness to testify to what Faye alleged?

I agree with your post completely. very few informed people believed that after faye was kicked out of the house by CR that she had a bank account full of money. She was homeless and broke and lying out of her neck and had a very active drug habit. There was NO witnesses that would asgree with fayes lies.imo

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 05:36 PM

*snip*
I also say 'so what' if he was. I'm neither anti gay men or gay women.

Same here, but it's interesting that when Martin posts about the supposed lesbian afair, it's posted as a negative, yet when it's pointed out the OJ's Father was gay, it's "so what"?

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:38 PM

I agree with your post completely. very few informed people believed that after faye was kicked out of the house by CR that she had a bank account full of money. She was homeless and broke and lying out of her neck and had a very active drug habit. There was NO witnesses that would asgree with fayes lies.imo

odd that you would say this since you continue to post her 'lies' as facts.

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 05:39 PM

*snip*
She was homeless and broke and lying out of her neck

Do you have a link to support your homeless allegation?

How does someone "lye out of their neck"? :shrug:

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:41 PM

Do you have a link to support your homeless allegation?

How does someone "lye out of their neck"? :shrug:

I kind of wondered about the 'homeless' thing too -- since she was living at Nicole's.

I think the 'lying out of her neck' must be something people do in martin's circle. :tongue:

07-24-2009, 05:47 PM

socaldiva

07-24-2009, 05:53 PM

This Faye discussion has gone on for days and I've yet to make the connection between anything Faye did or didn't do that links her to the murders of Ron and Nicole. Faye's book was the 'blueprint' for the case?? Can someone help me out?

Sshhh....it's what the NG's use to keep the discussion off of Simpson being the double murderer that he is. :biggrin:

weezer

07-24-2009, 05:55 PM

This Faye discussion has gone on for days and I've yet to make the connection between anything Faye did or didn't do that links her to the murders of Ron and Nicole. Faye's book was the 'blueprint' for the case?? Can someone help me out?

the NG's attempt at adopting the criminal defense of orenthal -- put everyone else on trial except the murderer: orenthal james simpson. :shrug:

bobaugust

07-24-2009, 07:02 PM

Thanks to all for your concern and prayers. I am recovering and able to try the stairs and will hope to fully be with you in a few days.

Here is the testimony

"Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others. "

Mr. Baker did not follow up with a question asking who the others were or, in other words, whether Park's testimony had been previously molded and Park only testified that he told those, who did not tell him it was not the bag, that it was not the bag and he regurgitated what those that told him it was not the bag.

Baker did ask a follow up question and Park’s answer was clear. Park had been shown that same bag in the criminal trial and said that it didn’t look familiar. Baker never claimed that Park’s testimony was molded.

November 20, 1995 Park

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?
A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.
Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

bobaugust

bobaugust

07-24-2009, 07:03 PM

Talk about misleading. :) If the pictures were taken on July the 13th they would have been taken in the A.M.

There is no need to become offensive simply because I and others disagree with your views. I am not one of the ones who have made derrogatory comments about your views until you have offensively attacked mine. I have supported all my views from evidence and links without could haves, would haves, maybes and entirely possibles.

The crime scene photograph showing blood on the rear gate was taken on June 13, the morning after the murders. This has nothing to do with a disagreement of views, it has to do with your refusal to admit that some comments you’ve made are misleading and incorrect. There was no crime scene photograph taken the night of the murders and there wasn’t an unidentified hair found inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

bobaugust

07-24-2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I do see something that supports an inference but nothing stated as a fact as you have claimed.

The crime scene photograph showing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders is additional evidence that proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:13 PM

martin, weezer posted an article. She did not call OJ Simpson's father a 'fag'. This is insulting another poster.

tv

are you suggesting that she has never posted post indicating that ojs dad was gay in a negative way???

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:22 PM

This Faye discussion has gone on for days and I've yet to make the connection between anything Faye did or didn't do that links her to the murders of Ron and Nicole. Faye's book was the 'blueprint' for the case?? Can someone help me out?

tv
i think you will agree that many people not involved in the murders or the case has been discussed. Fays conduct and her resulting testyimony and claims make her a live subject for discussion/.imo

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:32 PM

This Faye discussion has gone on for days and I've yet to make the connection between anything Faye did or didn't do that links her to the murders of Ron and Nicole. Faye's book was the 'blueprint' for the case?? Can someone help me out?

CR testified that some of fays book was not true.since you mentioned her book.

weezer

07-24-2009, 07:44 PM

CR testified that some of fays book was not true.since you mentioned her book.

except the part where faye told him orenthal said he was going to kill Nicole.

weezer

07-24-2009, 07:46 PM

NOT TRUE.
I talk about faye because of the kind of person she is as opposed to who she tried to tell the public who she was.

everyone understands the kind of person faye was -- I think it's sad that you use 'is' since there is no way you have any knowledge about what she's become.

martin II

07-24-2009, 07:50 PM

OJ WAS PLEASED TO GET AWAY FROM NICOLE
cr

Q: You're sure he wanted to see that relationship come to an end?

A: Yes.

Q: And O.J. Simpson told you that. Right?

A: Yeah, well, we talked about it quite a bit in those three months.

Q: And he told you that. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: In fact, as you just said, you talked about it "quite a bit." Right?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Over - you have to answer audibly.

A: Yes.

Q: Over a number of months. Right?

A: That's correct.

Q: And O.J. Simpson was unhappy in that relationship with Nicole. Correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Would you flatly deny that it was Nicole who dumped O.J. Simpson in that relationship at the very end?

MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

MR. RUBALCAVA: For clarification, can you specify as to when? Because I - if I'm not mistaken -

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Let me withdraw the question. Okay?

Q: At any time in the last three months of Nicole's life, is it true that Nicole rejected O.J. Simpson and said, "I am ending the relationship, not you"? Is that true?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE WITNESS: I don't quite - I don't think it could be answered with yes or no.

MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Why not? You just told me O.J. Simpson ended the relationship, and I am telling you that the opposite may be true. Okay? And I am now going to probe on that, and I would like you to tell me if you know of any information that what you just told me is false and

that in fact it was Nicole Brown Simpson who told O.J. Simpson, "I am ending

the relationship with you, not the other way around." Is that true?

A: So you're asking whether I know any information that negates - I'm trying to clarify the question -

Q: Yes, yes, yes.

A: - that you're asking. I think at the time they both went through times of wanting to be together, not wanting to be together -

Q: My question was limited to the time frame that you were referring to in your prior narrative answer: The last several months.

A: Yeah, I think that they went back and forth for a period of time, and then about four weeks or so before the murders O.J. went back with Paula.

Q: Okay. Let's focus on the last time they broke up, which you say was four weeks before the murders.

A: Yeah.

Q: True?

A: This was when O.J. started seeing Paula again, yes.

Q: Let's focus on that breakup. You have that in mind?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: You have to answer audibly.

A: Yes.

Q: Now, that to your knowledge was the last time O.J. Simpson and Nicole broke up. True?

A: Yes.

Q: And is what you are saying that it was O.J. Simpson who ended that relationship with Nicole -

A: That's correct.

Q: - not the other way around. True? -

---------------------------------

Q: And is what you are saying that it was O.J. Simpson who ended that relationship with Nicole -

A: That's correct.

Q: - not the other way around. True?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: And so anyone who would say that Nicole ended that relationship would be lying. True?

A: Yes.

Q: And you know that it was O.J. Simpson who ended the relationship for the last time because O.J. Simpson told you that. Right?

A: That's correct. At that time.

Q: At that time.

A: He told me at that time.

Q: And you believe now and since Nicole's murder, that that fact has been misstated. True?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you believe that rather than the true fact of O.J. Simpson ending the relationship being portrayed, what is being said is that it was Nicole who ended it and O.J. was pursuing her to change her mind. True?

A: Yeah.

Q: And you think that's false.

A: That Nicole - yes.

Q: And what does any of that have to do with your telling me that O.J.'s innocent?

A: Well, I think he has been portrayed as the jealous ex-husband, and I don't think that that was the fact.

Q: You don't think O.J.-

A: As it has been portrayed.

Q: You don't think OJ. was jealous in the last month because you think it was he, not Nicole, who wanted to stop the relationship. Right?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you think O.J. Simpson was free and happy and content to be out of that relationship. True?

A: Yes. Much more freer and content than he had been in a while.

Q: And O.J. Simpson told you those feelings. Right?

A: Yeah.

Q: In conversations that you had with him at the time.

A: That's correct.

Q: And has he reaffirmed those feelings to you in your many conversations since then?

A: Yes.

Q: And has he said to you, you know, "Christian, you know as well as I do that it was me who stopped that relationship, not Nicole, and I was not pursuing her"?

MR. LEONARD: Object to the form.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Has he said those kinds of things to you?

A: No.

Q: You just told me he reaffirmed -

A: Yeah.

weezer

07-24-2009, 07:57 PM

O.J.'s "Suicide Letter"
[Letter discovered on June 17, 1994, shortly before Simpson's televised Bronco ride and arrest.]

"To whom it may concern: First, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her, always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much. . ."

martin II

07-24-2009, 08:19 PM

BULL DOG DARDEN.
Putting pressure on witnesses as he did with Heidstra.

A: Well. I happen to know that in my case, for example, Mr. Darden was not very polite, not very friendly, not very - trying to say it politely -

Q: This is not the place to mince words.

MR. RUBALCAVA: No, let...

(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect a consultation between Mr. Reichardt and Mr. Rubalcava.

Q: Please proceed with your answer.

A: He was like - you're being polite, you're being professional, and Mr. Darden was not. He was a jerk, you know. Not only that, but he - by questions he asked me, I knew that he was obviously in contact very much with Faye Resnick. And when I told him, which is not in the deposition - in the interview written because we talked about that after the court reporter had quit taking notes, when I told Mr. Darden that Faye Resnick never had a diary on which she based her whole book and that a lot of the stories that Faye Resnick was bringing forward in her book did not happen the way that they did; and when I told him that Faye Resnick called me from where she was writing her book trying to get dates as to when we were in restaurants, as to when we were on vacation, she couldn't even remember names of the hotels, she couldn't even remember people that were there, when I told Mr. Darden this he became very indignant, and to me it was a question of, well, why hasn't he checked on any of this earlier.

Two days later she got dropped from the witness list. So to me it was very obviously he had not done his homework.

When I talked to him about that I had a conversation with O.J. at 9:00 o'clock on the evening of June 12th, he never asked me, "What did you talk about?" He never asked me, "How did he seem?" He never asked me, "How long did you talk?" Nothing. And to me, as a prosecutor trying to get the truth of a murder, I thought those were pretty important questions, you know.

So to me that's things that in my mind really confirmed the fact that this is a case of I think the police trying to just clear a case out and not follow necessarily up on doing the necessary homework to find the truth.

Q: Are you aware of any other instances of prosecutors not handling witnesses right besides what you just said?

A: Yeah. I got a phone call from a friend who is an attorney, saying, "Who's [Name Deleted] in your life?"

Q: [Name Deleted] who?

A: [Name Deleted].

Q: How do you spell that?

A: [Name Deleted] and I were married for a four-year period of time.

And I said. "What" - "Why?" And the answer was, "Well, the D.A.'s office is investigating who she is in your life."

"What does she have to do with anything?" you know.

I know that Cora Fischman was treated relatively rudely. I know that Candice Garvey came to my office one day, and it was in December of '94, she came in for treatment three, four times in a row for headaches, and I asked her, "Candice, what's going on? You're very nervous. What's happening?

And she said, "The prosecution team is driving me nuts."

And I said, "What's up?" Her answer was that they wanted her to change her story of what happened at the evening of the recital.

And I said, "Cora" - "Candice, look, just stick to what you know. You know what happened. Just keep saying what you know what happened. That's it.'

Well, she explained to me that O.J. at that night to her seemed quieter, seemed tired, but he seemed pretty normal to her. However, whenever her date was in the court, she gets up in the court and says in what gloomy mood he was. So I know she changed her testimony. I want to know why.

I know through Cora - I haven't talked to Ron Fischman, but I know through Cora that Ron was intimidate and was told that, you know, if he comes forward and gives his testimony of what he was talking to the D.A.'s office about, that he might get exposed for utilizing or taking some medications.

You know, I know people were - I don't know whether I want to call it threatened, but put on warning to not come forward with the information they had and, at the same token, people that were not relaying the truth were continuously brought forward as this is what happened, this is what happened, this is what happened.

Q: Any other instances of which you are aware?

A: No. That's it. That's all.

Q: Are you aware of any defense lawyers or investigators mishandling or mistreating witnesses?

A: Not that I'm aware of.

weezer

07-24-2009, 08:27 PM

except he testified that faye told him orenthal told her he was going to kill Nicole.

martin II

07-24-2009, 08:39 PM

weezer

07-24-2009, 08:43 PM

When oj was staying at RK house AC had the duty of bringing his kids back and forth from the Browns to RK House.
many have suggested that oj never took the time to confort his kids after he returned from Chicago. That claim was not true.

June 13 - orenthal notified of murders
June 16 - funerals
June 17 - orenthal's bronco ride and arrest

Please post a link to "AC had the duty of bringing his kids back and forth from the Browns to RK House."

martin II

07-24-2009, 08:51 PM

Martin,

Sorry,

Meant to say to Cora, not Faye. I do not believe Faye was ever a true friend of Nicole's. I also believe that when someone slips back into addiction, they only friend they want and need is the drug. How they get it, who they hurt or lie to do get it, doesn't matter, the only friend that matters is the drug, IMO.

Nicole told Cora about the "affair" and I guess Faye was very, very surprised. If Faye was a true a friend, she would have made sure she testified first before writing the book and she never would have included the details that were so hurtful to the Browns and her children as well as other friends of Nicole.

However, it never made any sense to me why the DA's would use Faye's book as their blue print for their case. Faye's book came out how many months after the murders and after it came out, they couldn't bring one witness to testify to what Faye alleged?

GI
See my post of CR testimony stating that it was oj that left Nicole not what g have always posted.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 08:52 PM

NOT TRUE.
I talk about faye because of the kind of person she is as opposed to who she tried to tell the public who she was.

Martin,

I disagree with the notion that the mention Faye means you are putting Nicole in a bad light. In fact, I think the reality of the situation is that bringing Faye into the picture proves just how naive Nicole was on many issues. Just how much power Faye and her "new friends" had over her---which is something that Simpson warned her about.

GreenIce

07-24-2009, 08:55 PM

GI
See my post of CR testimony stating that it was oj that left Nicole not what g have always posted.

Martin,

I have always maintained what both of them have said, it wasn't working, they knew it wasn't working and it was mutal. Which does not mean they did not love each other nor does it mean they hated one another. It just wasn't working. In the books that I have read, the main reason given is that Nicole didn't know what she wanted but in the end, she wanted her independence. She loved OJ but she also loved her freedom. Very understandable.

weezer

07-24-2009, 09:07 PM

in many post weezer has put forth her idea that ojs dad was gay or as she has said a "fag" my question is so what. If oj dad was gay i guess the son of a gay father is automatically a murderer as far as she is concerned. It could also mean that weezer is just anti gay men and want the world to know it.

Discrimination against gays and people with different religious beliefs and race
is a hugh problem in the country. hopefully these knuckle heads will soon be no more and love can take over.

ac's deposition April 16

". . .A: If [Name Deleted] was there, I think her and [Name Deleted] hung out. So I said, "What's wrong?" She said, "Dad said to come on."

Q: "Dad" -

A: "Dad said to come on."

Q: Okay.

A: So when I got to the car, O.J. had a straight face on. I said, "What's wrong?" And he says, "I'm not going to take that. I said, "What happened?" And he told me that Nicole - after Nicole had let the man hold the baby, after - no - she took the baby back, O.J. supposedly had said, you know, "Why did you have that gay guy to hold my baby?" or something like that. And she says, "Why you concerned about him being gay? Your father is gay." and O.J. got very upset with it, and he told me in the car - . . ."

GreenIce

07-25-2009, 03:22 AM

It is easy to say that Faye was lying, but if so it was an odd coincidence that she made up the lie before Nicole was killed. Also a coincidence that an Orenthal supporter, CR, remember this statement.

The NG's have a pattern of ignoring things that indicate OJS was guilty. I agree that Faye probably did tell some lies. For one thing she sometimes had a drug problem, prossibly not as bad as some have written, but most addicts are dishonest.
Nicole told various people that she thought Orenthal would kill her: Faye, Kato, her theapist - Susan Forward, and Kris Jenner. I think there were others as well.
So we have evidence that Nicole thought Orenthal would kill her, and that Orenthal talked about killing her.

Suppose I had a friend living in a low crime neighborhood who kept predicting that a former husband would kill her, and then the fried was killed in a manner similar to what she predicted. I would then think that there was a good chance that the former husband did it, and also that the police should take a good hard look at it even if there is some evidence the former husband might be innocent.

As far as I can tell the NGs expect me and others to think Orenthal couldn't have done it because of minor problems with the time lines. These problems on the time lines exist because some of the people weren't asked about their memories of things until 24 or more hours later. I think none of the witnesses realized that the time lines were important till at least 12 hours later. Under these circumstances, a 10 minute innacuracy isn't suprising.

Fgump2,

If you feel it is fair to say that NG's ignore "evidence" that points to Simpson's guilt, isn't just as fair to say that G's ignore the clear pattern of the problems of evidence as well as the indicators of Simpson's innocence?

There are no minor problems with the timeline. The DA's theory is not back up by the science of the evidence. They presented their experts who could only give their opinon about the length of the struggle, how many people may have been involved, how many knives may have been used. They could nould not testify to any of this with any degree a medical certainity.

Faye didn't "sometimes" have a drug problem she is an addict and she always will be. Even if she never takes another drug in her life, she will still be an addict.

Susan Forward saw Nicole twice, why did Nicole stop seeing her? How many therapists did Nicole see and how many of these therapists followed the law and formally, in writing, put Nicole on notice? How many of the therapists that OJ Simpson saw, also followed the law, and put it in writing that he was a danager to Nicole?

When did Kris Jenner ever testify about Nicole telling her that she believed that Simpson was going to kill her? Do you mean to say that all these "friends" were told by Nicole that Simpson was going to kill her and they all still went on vacations with the Simpsons? They still enjoyed him picking up the tab? That many of these women had the money to get Nicole away from the situation but opted not to because????? That none of these women, went to their husbands or to AC to tell them that Nicole was in fear for her life? That Simpson was beating her? Where were all these friends when Nicole really needed them?

Faye was told by Nicole that OJ was going to kill her, but Faye was worried about OJ Simpson not being her friend any more if OJ and Nicole broke up? Faye still accepted the Simpson's generosity and loved going the social events, even if Nicole was not going to be attending?

I am sure that no G has ever said the wrong thing or used the terms, "I am going to kill him (or her) ever, however humans often say things like this and to most people, they see it as a figure of speech. If I had a buck for everytime I said that, my great grandchildren would not have to work a day in their life.

Also, bottom line, Faye killed her credibility and there was no way she wanted to take the witness stand.

BTW, if we are to believe everything Nicole was said to have said, then we can't forget about how she "knew" her friends would sell her out. I guess there is no doubt about that, IMO.

GreenIce

07-25-2009, 04:23 AM

07-25-2009, 09:49 AM

It appears that Faye Resnick is doing quite well. She owns her own design business Faye Resnick Design. Some of her high profile clients include Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Nick Lachey, Kevin Connolly, Hilary Duff and Tracy McGrady. Resnick also has commercial design projects such as the Caesars Palace Salon in Las Vegas, which opened in December 2007.

http://www.fayeresnick.com/index.html

07-25-2009, 09:51 AM

CR testified that some of fays book was not true.since you mentioned her book.

Whether the book was true or completely made up doesn't explain a connection between Faye and the murders.

07-25-2009, 10:02 AM

I hope it's understood by everyone that Faye Resnick did testify in the civil trial.

07-25-2009, 10:08 AM

GI
See my post of CR testimony stating that it was oj that left Nicole not what g have always posted.

It doesn't mean he was telling the truth. Most of the inner circle of Nicole's and Simpson's friends say just the opposite. This G still stands by the truth --Nicole dumped the Juice.

07-25-2009, 10:33 AM

Fgump2,

If you feel it is fair to say that NG's ignore "evidence" that points to Simpson's guilt, isn't just as fair to say that G's ignore the clear pattern of the problems of evidence as well as the indicators of Simpson's innocence? What indicators of innocence? Please enlighten us.

There are no minor problems with the timeline. The DA's theory is not back up by the science of the evidence. They presented their experts who could only give their opinon about the length of the struggle, how many people may have been involved, how many knives may have been used. They could nould not testify to any of this with any degree a medical certainity. The same with the defense experts.

Faye didn't "sometimes" have a drug problem she is an addict and she always will be. Even if she never takes another drug in her life, she will still be an addict. I believe fg2 meant there were times when her drug use was active and times when it wasn't..

Susan Forward saw Nicole twice, why did Nicole stop seeing her? What difference does it make? How many therapists did Nicole see and how many of these therapists followed the law and formally, in writing, put Nicole on notice? On notice for what?? How many of the therapists that OJ Simpson saw, also followed the law, and put it in writing that he was a danager to Nicole? Why do you keep asking these questions? Why do you expect everyone else to answer these questions for you?

When did Kris Jenner ever testify about Nicole telling her that she believed that Simpson was going to kill her? Do you mean to say that all these "friends" were told by Nicole that Simpson was going to kill her and they all still went on vacations with the Simpsons? They still enjoyed him picking up the tab? I think most of these friends were told this by Nicole after she was separated and divorced from Simpson. That many of these women had the money to get Nicole away from the situation but opted not to because????? Nicole was away from the situation and had already made plans to get further away. She didn't need financial help from her friends. Where do you get this stuff??? That none of these women, went to their husbands or to AC to tell them that Nicole was in fear for her life? That Simpson was beating her? AC had known for years that Simpson beat Nicole and continued to enable him. Where were all these friends when Nicole really needed them? Making the friends out to be at fault when it was OJ Simpson that stalked, beat and ultimately murdered Nicole. Classic GI.

Faye was told by Nicole that OJ was going to kill her, but Faye was worried about OJ Simpson not being her friend any more if OJ and Nicole broke up? Faye still accepted the Simpson's generosity and loved going the social events, even if Nicole was not going to be attending? :no:

I am sure that no G has ever said the wrong thing or used the terms, "I am going to kill him (or her) ever, however humans often say things like this and to most people, they see it as a figure of speech. If I had a buck for everytime I said that, my great grandchildren would not have to work a day in their life. Maybe your statements would make your great grandchildren rich one day but most people try to control their impulse to say the first thing out of their mouth. Tossing around a death threat isn't a figure of speech in the context that OJ Simpson said it. Not everyone that threatens to kill someone is using a figure of speech.

So, bottom line, Faye killed her credibility and there was no way she wanted to take the witness stand. She testifed in the civil trial.

BTW, if we are to believe everything Nicole was said to have said, then we can't forget about how she "knew" her friends would sell her out. I guess there is no doubt about that, IMO.

Good grief. :eek:

martin II

07-25-2009, 10:41 AM

[QUOTE=martin II;9205909]nicole wrote that letter to cora not faye.

Martin,

By any chance, do you know where there is a copy of this letter?

Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that Nicole would write this in a letter? Why would she committ this to paper?

To be fair, if the argument can be made that if Nicole was leaving a paper trail to OJ, that she was also doing it in regards to Faye? And if she wrote this to Cora, who else did she write this to or did she leave it in a place where she knew it would be found?

Also, I wonder if Faye knew about this letter before the murders? If she did, doesn't it now even more sense why Faye would ensure that she would never take the witness the stand but also to point the finger at Simpson as well as maybe Marcus Allen or perhaps point the finger at Nicole's own behavior--that Faye, in her book was also laying some of the blame on Nicole's death on Nicole herself?

The letter was posted by a former poster on one of the old oj threads. Those old threads have been deleted.

i never understood why faye, nicoles friend told people about the lesbin affair or that nicole freebased with her.
i don't think Cora would show faye this letter as Cora kinda blames faye for the bar hopping and changed like style of nicole and Cora told nicole that she was drinking and partying too much.imo

martin II

07-25-2009, 10:43 AM

07-25-2009, 10:45 AM

tv
i think you will agree that many people not involved in the murders or the case has been discussed. Fays conduct and her resulting testyimony and claims make her a live subject for discussion/.imo

It's a live subject alright -- it's been going on for three days.

07-25-2009, 10:46 AM

Good for Faye.

This shows she is still standing but it does not show that she is drug free.
only faye knows that.

Do you really care if she's drug-free? :shrug:

martin II

07-25-2009, 10:47 AM

Good grief. :eek:

tv
once a alcoholic always a alcoholic same is true for drug addicts.
they will always be in recovery.

07-25-2009, 10:51 AM

tv
once a alcoholic always a alcoholic same is true for drug addicts.
they will always be in recovery.

I realize this -- but as you know, addictions flare up and can be worse at times than at other times. To say a person is an addict doesn't mean they're actively taking drugs.

martin II

07-25-2009, 10:53 AM

Do you really care if she's drug-free? :shrug:

tv
i am always pleased to see a recovering addict remain drug free. It means that they are still fighting the good fight.

07-25-2009, 10:55 AM

tv
i am always pleased to see a recovering addict remain drug free. It means that they are still fighting the good fight.

How kind of you and to think that I've been thinking that you dislike Faye. Shame on me. :cool:

martin II

07-25-2009, 11:06 AM

I realize this -- but as you know, addictions flare up and can be worse at times than at other times. To say a person is an addict doesn't mean they're actively taking drugs.

Agreed. most recovering addicts relaps many times until they get the message
it is a lifetime effort to remain drug free.
My origional point was that addicts that go to some of these tough strick drug rehabe usually stay drug free longer than those that spend two weeks or go to these easy rehab programs that only take their money.

i know of drug rehab porograms where there are no phone calls for 1-2 months. where people are made to do dirty jobs.shave their heads and are generally broken down and stripped of their status before being built back up.

Where they have to earn everything they are given. this program has a very high rate of success as opposed to celiberty programs where addicts are allowed to what the want to do.

07-25-2009, 11:33 AM

How do they convince people to stay in those programs or is it court mandated?

martin II

07-25-2009, 11:41 AM

How kind of you and to think that I've been thinking that you dislike Faye. Shame on me. :cool:

my idea of the kind of person faye was has nothing to do with my wish that she could remain drug free. her personal problems may have lead to her addiction and that to her negative lifestyle.

i don't emjoy seeing any active addict.

ps
Any alcoholic or drug addict that has several years of active addiction just means that they had not found a 'GOOD' detox and rehab program during that time. i believe every addict wants to be drug free but most need help.imo

martin II

07-25-2009, 11:54 AM

How do they convince people to stay in those programs or is it court mandated?

some come to this program by choice and others from the court.

This proram gives true tough love. when people see true concern they fight the fight.
when they see graduates of the program come back and give their stories
they have understanding of what it takes to remain drug free they stickl it out.

my cousin was caught taking a cigarette from another persoin and he was made to wear a big sign saying 'i stole a cigarette from a person' for a week.

Pretty women are made to shave their heads, wear no lipstick and wear old clothes.No phone calls is to cut addict off from outside friends that are still active. It is a hard program but it works.

people are allowed to leave unless by court order.

weezer

07-25-2009, 12:11 PM

okay -- now that martin has informed the board about his knowledge on 'strick' drug rehab programs, can we get to the simpson trial? at the time of their deaths, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown had NO drugs in their system. faye resnick was in a drug rehab facility. at the time orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he DID have drugs in his system. :shrug:

martin II

07-25-2009, 04:03 PM

07-25-2009, 05:28 PM

tv
in AA there are people that they call DRY DRUNKS.Those that don't drink but
still show the attitudes and personalities of one that drinks.People with personality defects that live with anger and are constantly trying to control others.imo

not you.

That fits OJ Simpson perfectly. He was very controlling and a very angry person towards Nicole. I don't know that I'd call him a dry drunk -- he seemed to do his share of alcohol and recreational drugs.

martin II

07-25-2009, 07:26 PM

That fits OJ Simpson perfectly. He was very controlling and a very angry person towards Nicole. I don't know that I'd call him a dry drunk -- he seemed to do his share of alcohol and recreational drugs.

Well that may or may not be true but there is testimony that after he did his 'SHARE' someone close to him did theirs also.imo:cool:

GreenIce

07-25-2009, 08:07 PM

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9206158]

The letter was posted by a former poster on one of the old oj threads. Those old threads have been deleted.

i never understood why faye, nicoles friend told people about the lesbin affair or that nicole freebased with her.
i don't think Cora would show faye this letter as Cora kinda blames faye for the bar hopping and changed like style of nicole and Cora told nicole that she was drinking and partying too much.imo

Martin,

I find this letter to be very interesting--most of all because didn't Nicole and Cora jog together almost everyday? Why write a letter like this if you saw the person every day.

I don't think Cora would tell Faye about the letter but the question is, did Nicole tell or write other friends the same thing? Either way, it is interesting that Nicole wrote this down, IMO.

IIRC, Nicole was the first person who told someone about their affair and that was Cora. I don't know how Faye found about it but she appeared to be angry at Nicole over this. Faye was never a friend of Nicole's and I think toward the end of Nicole's life, she realized this. Faye about money and social standing, that was not Nicole. Yes, Nicole loved and enjoyed the money but it is clear she was not in to the glamour or being part of the social butterfly society.

IMO

martin II

07-25-2009, 09:13 PM

[QUOTE=martin II;9206177]

Martin,

I find this letter to be very interesting--most of all because didn't Nicole and Cora jog together almost everyday? Why write a letter like this if you saw the person every day.

I don't think Cora would tell Faye about the letter but the question is, did Nicole tell or write other friends the same thing? Either way, it is interesting that Nicole wrote this down, IMO.

IIRC, Nicole was the first person who told someone about their affair and that was Cora. I don't know how Faye found about it but she appeared to be angry at Nicole over this. Faye was never a friend of Nicole's and I think toward the end of Nicole's life, she realized this. Faye about money and social standing, that was not Nicole. Yes, Nicole loved and enjoyed the money but it is clear she was not in to the glamour or being part of the social butterfly society.

IMO

There is testimony that it was faye that was the person responsible for nicole going out to bars and partying a lot. It may be that faye received some status from being nicoles friend. Or pretending to be a friend.

weezer

07-25-2009, 11:25 PM

greenice/martin, please post a link to the trial evidence of the letter you are discussing.

weezer

07-25-2009, 11:26 PM

Well that may or may not be true but there is testimony that after he did his 'SHARE' someone close to him did theirs also.imo:cool:

who are you talking about now? ac or arnelle?

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 12:53 AM

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9206252]

There is testimony that it was faye that was the person responsible for nicole going out to bars and partying a lot. It may be that faye received some status from being nicoles friend. Or pretending to be a friend.

Martin,

From Shelia Weller's book, Faye is not blamed for this. The changes were Nicole's quest for freedom and trying to make up for lost time after being married for so long and being free since she was a teenager.

It seems like Weller's book divides Nicole's "old friends", ie, Ron Shipp, Kris Jenner, Cora, etc. vs Nicole's "new" friends, Faye. The old friends were scared for Nicole and felt she was losing control and/or was out of control the last few months of her life. Funny, except for Cora, I don't remember any of them blaming Faye. However, Kris Jenner would never blame Faye since she was the brought Faye to Nicole's door step.

IMO, Faye doesn't have the "chip" in her body to be a friend. She is a user and an abuser of people, IMO.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 03:24 AM

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9206252]

There is testimony that it was faye that was the person responsible for nicole going out to bars and partying a lot. It may be that faye received some status from being nicoles friend. Or pretending to be a friend.

Martin,

IMO, Faye knew that Nicole's 'status' depended on OJ's and Nicole's relationship.

I have glanced at both Faye's and Cora's depo and I don't think either of them mention Nicole calling the women's shelter. Have you ever come across this? Did either of them or any of Nicole's friends ever say they knew that Nicole called the shelter?

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 03:28 AM

The crime scene photograph showing blood on the rear gate was taken on June 13, the morning after the murders. This has nothing to do with a disagreement of views, it has to do with your refusal to admit that some comments you’ve made are misleading and incorrect. There was no crime scene photograph taken the night of the murders and there wasn’t an unidentified hair found inside the Rockingham glove.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are being very misleading with this post. You know as well as I do that the picture taken was not taken because of the evidence that was said to have been found later on the fence.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 06:12 AM

1. Being told that Nicole was killed, he did ask two questions, "what do you mean killed"--which is no reference to that Nicole was murdered. "why are my kids at the police station"--which means he did not know where she was killed.

2. Told Arnelle to take kids to the Browns--which means he had no idea at that time what the kids may have heard or seen that night.

3. Never told Arnelle that the Browns had accused him of killing Nicole

4. Had no reason to kill Nicole, there was not any trigger for the murders

5. Nicole was being followed, Nicole did receive obscene phone calls--none of this ever lead back to Simpson.

6. A Nicole's call to the women's shelter, has been reported, including in pre trial hearing that this Nicole did identify the person who was stalking her as OJ Simpson, yet this was not testified to in the civil trial.

7. Nicole would not hesitate to call 911, which does not support the she had called police in the past and they had refused to help her.

8. The incidents that have been public, only one involved physical contact and the transcripts of Nicole's statements as well as the legal proceedings have never been released.

9. Sydney Simpson never identified her father as the person who made her mother cry that night nor who she was fighting with.

10. IRS letter, one that needed to be written to protect Simpson as well as sending Nicole a message that she needed to make some decisions and start standing on her own two feet.

11. Both Nicole's and OJ's jealously over other lovers is common and nothing out of the ordinary.

12. No proof that Simpson stalked or terriorized Nicole on a consistent basis and when Simpson did see Nicole in an intimate situation, he did not make a scene and explained why he did what did and did express his concerns that his children could have seen this act. Never does he accuse Nicole of being a bad mother for her choices in her person life.

13. Both OJ and Nicole had confidence that if they wanted the other back, they could do so.

14. Simpson found happiness with other women besides Nicole.

15. While I posted that Nicole did not find happiness with another person, that does not mean she was even looking for this type of relationship at the end of her life. It appears to me that Nicole was trying to find herself and that was not looking for a man to help her do this.

16. Simpson had no reason to fault or even complain about Nicole's boyfriends, he knew that his womanizing left him in no position to judge. However, that does not mean he let her forget about it either, but again, this is where the double standard kicks in, again.

17. He knew that his kids and a friend of Sydney's was spending the night. Had no way of knowing when the kids were going to bed or if they would even be asleep.

18. Had he gone to Nicole's that night, he would have know that she was expecting someone at any minute.

19. The phone call to the West Side Police station.

20. The woman who the couple who found the bodies asked to call the police and did not do so.

21. If he killed Ron and Nicole from behind and did so in less than 1 minute, then he could not have stepped in pools of blood to leave blood footprints.

22. Did not have to use the back gate to escape and risk being seen or caught.

23. Kato the dog, IMO, was held down or muzzled, at least until the killers left the scene.

24. Behavior of dog when found by the Steven Swab was consistent with the killers still being the area.

25. Dog's difference in behavior when Steven Swab tried to get the dog to lead him to his master's house vs the couple who found the bodies. Dog would not budged from street corner the first time, second time, almost dragged couple to the bodies.

26. Blood foot prints lead to believe that at least one killer left from back gate but foot prints, IIRC, also lead to dog following someone who left the front gate or was on Bundy, going south.

27. The timeline, Simpson need to buy it, however, no indication that this was done.

This will be continued......

martin II

07-26-2009, 08:23 AM

[QUOTE=martin II;9206257]

Martin,

From Shelia Weller's book, Faye is not blamed for this. The changes were Nicole's quest for freedom and trying to make up for lost time after being married for so long and being free since she was a teenager.

It seems like Weller's book divides Nicole's "old friends", ie, Ron Shipp, Kris Jenner, Cora, etc. vs Nicole's "new" friends, Faye. The old friends were scared for Nicole and felt she was losing control and/or was out of control the last few months of her life. Funny, except for Cora, I don't remember any of them blaming Faye. However, Kris Jenner would never blame Faye since she was the brought Faye to Nicole's door step.

IMO, Faye doesn't have the "chip" in her body to be a friend. She is a user and an abuser of people, IMO.

i agree that nicole did decide that marriage was not her thing. i also think that faye was more than willing to help her look for whatever she she though was out therre for her. Nicole did a lot of dating with different men but did not seem to find one that stayed for any length of time.:shrug:

martin II

07-26-2009, 08:33 AM

1. Being told that Nicole was killed, he did ask two questions, "what do you mean killed"--which is no reference to that Nicole was murdered. "why are my kids at the police station"--which means he did not know where she was killed.

2. Told Arnelle to take kids to the Browns--which means he had no idea at that time what the kids may have heard or seen that night.

3. Never told Arnelle that the Browns had accused him of killing Nicole

4. Had no reason to kill Nicole, there was not any trigger for the murders

5. Nicole was being followed, Nicole did receive obscene phone calls--none of this ever lead back to Simpson.

6. A Nicole's call to the women's shelter, has been reported, including in pre trial hearing that this Nicole did identify the person who was stalking her as OJ Simpson, yet this was not testified to in the civil trial.

7. Nicole would not hesitate to call 911, which does not support the she had called police in the past and they had refused to help her.

8. The incidents that have been public, only one involved physical contact and the transcripts of Nicole's statements as well as the legal proceedings have never been released.

9. Sydney Simpson never identified her father as the person who made her mother cry that night nor who she was fighting with.

10. IRS letter, one that needed to be written to protect Simpson as well as sending Nicole a message that she needed to make some decisions and start standing on her own two feet.

11. Both Nicole's and OJ's jealously over other lovers is common and nothing out of the ordinary.

12. No proof that Simpson stalked or terriorized Nicole on a consistent basis and when Simpson did see Nicole in an intimate situation, he did not make a scene and explained why he did what did and did express his concerns that his children could have seen this act. Never does he accuse Nicole of being a bad mother for her choices in her person life.

13. Both OJ and Nicole had confidence that if they wanted the other back, they could do so.

14. Simpson found happiness with other women besides Nicole.

15. While I posted that Nicole did not find happiness with another person, that does not mean she was even looking for this type of relationship at the end of her life. It appears to me that Nicole was trying to find herself and that was not looking for a man to help her do this.

16. Simpson had no reason to fault or even complain about Nicole's boyfriends, he knew that his womanizing left him in no position to judge. However, that does not mean he let her forget about it either, but again, this is where the double standard kicks in, again.

17. He knew that his kids and a friend of Sydney's was spending the night. Had no way of knowing when the kids were going to bed or if they would even be asleep.

18. Had he gone to Nicole's that night, he would have know that she was expecting someone at any minute.

19. The phone call to the West Side Police station.

20. The woman who the couple who found the bodies asked to call the police and did not do so.

21. If he killed Ron and Nicole from behind and did so in less than 1 minute, then he could not have stepped in pools of blood to leave blood footprints.

22. Did not have to use the back gate to escape and risk being seen or caught.

23. Kato the dog, IMO, was held down or muzzled, at least until the killers left the scene.

24. Behavior of dog when found by the Steven Swab was consistent with the killers still being the area.

25. Dog's difference in behavior when Steven Swab tried to get the dog to lead him to his master's house vs the couple who found the bodies. Dog would not budged from street corner the first time, second time, almost dragged couple to the bodies.

26. Blood foot prints lead to believe that at least one killer left from back gate but foot prints, IIRC, also lead to dog following someone who left the front gate or was on Bundy, going south.

27. The timeline, Simpson need to buy it, however, no indication that this was done.

This will be continued......

Thanks for this

07-26-2009, 08:54 AM

1. Being told that Nicole was killed, he did ask two questions, "what do you mean killed"--which is no reference to that Nicole was murdered. "why are my kids at the police station"--which means he did not know where she was killed. This isn't indicative of anything. Besides, you don't think a double-murderer would lie?

2. Told Arnelle to take kids to the Browns--which means he had no idea at that time what the kids may have heard or seen that night. They had to be taken somewhere...what difference did it make?

3. Never told Arnelle that the Browns had accused him of killing Nicole. How could he have known this when he spoke to Arnelle about the kids? When you say 'never' do you mean to this day?

4. Had no reason to kill Nicole, there was not any trigger for the murders. A sociopath doesn't need a rational reason.

5. Nicole was being followed, Nicole did receive obscene phone calls--none of this ever lead back to Simpson. You don't think it's possible for Nicole to have problems unrelated to her crazy ex-husband? Why do the two things have to be connected?

6. A Nicole's call to the women's shelter, has been reported, including in pre trial hearing that this Nicole did identify the person who was stalking her as OJ Simpson, yet this was not testified to in the civil trial. I can't find any testimony by Nancy Ney in the preliminary hearing but she did testify in the civil trial and stated that Nicole said her ex-husband was a high profile person who's name Ms. Ney would recognize. Do you have a link to the what you're talking about?

7. Nicole would not hesitate to call 911, which does not support the she had called police in the past and they had refused to help her. They responded but they didn't do anything to Simpson. She says this clearly to the 911 operator in one of her calls. Besides, we only know about the calls she made -- we don't know how many times she hesitated or decided not to call.

8. The incidents that have been public, only one involved physical contact and the transcripts of Nicole's statements as well as the legal proceedings have never been released. Simpson was only charged once. There are several other incidents witnessed and testifed to that involved physical contact.

9. Sydney Simpson never identified her father as the person who made her mother cry that night nor who she was fighting with. What does this mean? Nothing.

10. IRS letter, one that needed to be written to protect Simpson as well as sending Nicole a message that she needed to make some decisions and start standing on her own two feet. Total BS. He was being mean and vindictive. He certainly didn't mind circumventing the law any other time it suited him. He was furious that she was becoming independent.

11. Both Nicole's and OJ's jealously over other lovers is common and nothing out of the ordinary. At the time of her death Nicole wasn't jealous of her ex-husband's women. She didn't want him anymore.

12. No proof that Simpson stalked or terriorized Nicole on a consistent basis and when Simpson did see Nicole in an intimate situation, he did not make a scene and explained why he did what did and did express his concerns that his children could have seen this act. Never does he accuse Nicole of being a bad mother for her choices in her person life. He didn't make a scene because it would have involved confronting a man. Besides, he was looking in the window -- kind of creepy.

13. Both OJ and Nicole had confidence that if they wanted the other back, they could do so. You know this how?

14. Simpson found happiness with other women besides Nicole. Simpson found sex with other women besides Nicole. He didn't invite Paula to a lot of family functions. She wasn't invited by him to the recital.

15. While I posted that Nicole did not find happiness with another person, that does not mean she was even looking for this type of relationship at the end of her life. It appears to me that Nicole was trying to find herself and that was not looking for a man to help her do this.

16. Simpson had no reason to fault or even complain about Nicole's boyfriends, he knew that his womanizing left him in no position to judge. He wasn't just a womanizer -- he had sex with women in his house while Nicole was there. However, that does not mean he let her forget about it either, but again, this is where the double standard kicks in, again.

17. He knew that his kids and a friend of Sydney's was spending the night. Had no way of knowing when the kids were going to bed or if they would even be asleep. Again, why do you think someone enraged or crazy enough to commit a double-murder is thinking rationally? I think that he talked to Nicole that night and she told him the children were asleep and even possibly that the friend had gone home.

18. Had he gone to Nicole's that night, he would have know that she was expecting someone at any minute. He did go to Nicole's that night and he found out she was expecting someone. That's how Ron ended up dead.

19. The phone call to the West Side Police station. BS.

20. The woman who the couple who found the bodies asked to call the police and did not do so. What meaning does this have for you? It's trivia.

21. If he killed Ron and Nicole from behind and did so in less than 1 minute, then he could not have stepped in pools of blood to leave blood footprints. Do you think he only walked backwards after killing them? Who ever said it took less than a minute and why would that keep him from stepping in blood?

22. Did not have to use the back gate to escape and risk being seen or caught. He used the back gate as evidenced by the blood on the gate.

23. Kato the dog, IMO, was held down or muzzled, at least until the killers left the scene. Do you have one shred of evidence that indicates this?

24. Behavior of dog when found by the Steven Swab was consistent with the killers still being the area. Now you're the pet psychic?

25. Dog's difference in behavior when Steven Swab tried to get the dog to lead him to his master's house vs the couple who found the bodies. Dog would not budged from street corner the first time, second time, almost dragged couple to the bodies. Dogs sometimes do things that humans just don't understand...at least that's what most rational people will tell you. Did an animal behaviorist study the dog's behavior?

26. Blood foot prints lead to believe that at least one killer left from back gate but foot prints, IIRC, also lead to dog following someone who left the front gate or was on Bundy, going south. Are you saying that there are human footprints going out the front gate and on Bundy? Do you have a source for this information?

27. The timeline, Simpson need to buy it, however, no indication that this was done. What does this mean?

This will be continued......

No doubt.

07-26-2009, 08:56 AM

i agree that nicole did decide that marriage was not her thing. i also think that faye was more than willing to help her look for whatever she she though was out therre for her. Nicole did a lot of dating with different men but did not seem to find one that stayed for any length of time.:shrug:

Marriage might have been her thing but Simpson's abuse and unfaithfulness probably soured her on being married to him.

martin II

07-26-2009, 11:55 AM

Marriage might have been her thing but Simpson's abuse and unfaithfulness probably soured her on being married to him.

i thought her comments to friends was that she wanted her FREEDOM to play the field and have the freedom to see other men.its like she may have wanted to see if she still had it. But she dated 6-7 different men and these relationships all flammed out. After having her freedom for a while she decided that she wanted and asked oj to let her come back to him.So it did not seem that at that point she was running from oj.

martin II

07-26-2009, 12:02 PM

Marriage might have been her thing but Simpson's abuse and unfaithfulness probably soured her on being married to him.

tv
After trying the other side of the street she found no green grass so she ran back to where the grass was green for her but she could not get back in.
Its like barbershop rules 'YOU GET UP YOU LOOSE'

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:25 PM

When Cowling was driving OJ in the Bronco, what was that all about? OJ had his passport, a batch of money, and his pistol. That seemed to be a telltale sign of paranoia. I suppose knowing he was innocent and all, he was certain he was being framed and needed to get out of the country.

Some are aware of innocent until proven guilty, unless you are Black.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:28 PM

Although the LAPD is crooked, I give them credit for being extremely tricky.
After deciding to frame OJ, they were able to put bloody footprints of his Italian shoes on the floorboard of his Bronco. They then disposed of the shoes since they were never found. I've always wondered why they didn't plant them in the house.

Please, post the testimony where the BM shoe prints were found in the Bronco.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:30 PM

cockroach knew his audience and used their ignorance and personal agenda to get a double murderer off. ;)

The magnificent one exposed the horrors of being Black in America.:patriot::patriot:

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:32 PM

during the trial i remember many talking heads and legal experts saying that the prosecutions case was falling apart.so i guess the jury was not the only group that thought the prosecution dfid not prove their case.

Do you mean those that were trained in the law and understood who had to prove what and by what standard?

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:36 PM

The glove containing the blood of OJ Simpson in three areas is proof that he was in the possession of the glove and dropped it when he was returning from Bundy. hahaha

It is only proof that his blood was somehow deposited on the glove, which calls into question the missing blood.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 01:41 PM

tv
After trying the other side of the street she found no green grass so she ran back to where the grass was green for her but she could not get back in.
Its like barbershop rules 'YOU GET UP YOU LOOSE'

Martin,

I have to disagree with this post and the other one about Nicole and the marriage.

I think Nicole did find green grass on the side of the street. However, that does not mean that her children found that green grass or that she lost her desire to have her family re-united. I don't think Nicole's desire to give the marriage another try is that unusal. If Nicole was only in it for the money or the status she got from being Simpson's wife, IMO, she never would have left in the first the place because she could have careless who he was with as long as the money kept coming in.

IMO, if Nicole wanted a rich husband to support her lifestyle, she easily could have found one and it did not have to be OJ Simpson. There are plenty of men who want trophy wives---which, IMO, means they are married in bascially name only but are able to live their life like a single man.

IMO, Nicole was not looking for a husband or even a long term relationship, she wanted to have fun but was not ready for the responsibilty that goes with it. Nicole was married to Simpson long before they ever took their vows, she had been "married" for the past 17 years of her life and was not ready to jump into another one. If that was what she wanted, she would have done so, IMO.

I don't think Nicole truly knew what she wanted in that regard but she did know what she didn't want in that area. I think the divorce really opened Nicole's eyes as to how dependent she had been on Simpson and realized that she didn't ever want to be in the same situation again. She wanted to be able to support herself and her children so she would never put herself and her children in that situation again.

It was not in Faye's best interest to have Nicole and Simpson break up. She enjoyed the benefits she received from them being together. Simpson opened the doors that Faye wanted to walk through, the only problem is, Nicole did not want to walk through the same doors. Faye knew money was going to be an issue between the Simpsons and Faye knew OJ called the shots on this. Faye also knew that IRS letter was threat to Nicole's lifestyle and any threat to Nicole's lifestyle was a threat to her's. IMO.

IMO, I think during this time that the age difference and life experiences between the Simpsons also played a role in the break up. Nicole wanted to experience life without having a man in it and that is not uncommon either.

Again, all this is from my point of view.

07-26-2009, 01:41 PM

i thought her comments to friends was that she wanted her FREEDOM to play the field and have the freedom to see other men.its like she may have wanted to see if she still had it. But she dated 6-7 different men and these relationships all flammed out. After having her freedom for a while she decided that she wanted and asked oj to let her come back to him.So it did not seem that at that point she was running from oj.

They took a trip to Cabo San Lucas with friends in April 1994. When they returned Simpson was upset because Nicole was acting distant toward him. That's when he told Faye that he would kill Nicole if he caught her with another man. It was shortly after that he sent the IRS letter to get back at her and make life difficult for her because she dumped him. They divorced in 1992, reconciled in 1993 and he killed her in 1994. You have your timeline wrong on the sequence of events.

07-26-2009, 01:42 PM

It is only proof that his blood was somehow deposited on the glove, which calls into question the missing blood.

There is no missing blood.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 01:44 PM

It is only proof that his blood was somehow deposited on the glove, which calls into question the missing blood.

Hey William!

It has been posted that there was a mixture of Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's blood on the glove but I have not been able to find it. I think it was TV who posted that Gary Sims found one mixture but it was not positive that it was Simpson's blood.

Also, no one can figure out how Ron and Nicole's blood got inside the glove in the finger area.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:44 PM

TV,

The "Yellow Brick Road" was made brick by brick by the LAPD and SID departments. I don't know if you have read Hank Goldberg's book but he does go into this a bit and he blames these "bricks" on severe underfunding of the SID team and the lack of training of SID employees. He also brings up an excellent point about how evidence was stored and how it was taken for granted that the evidence was simply secure because it was kept inside the lab.

Despite the fact that the prosecution clicked its heels, they could not make the gloves fit and therefore they had to...

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:46 PM

There is no missing blood.

Let me stand corrected, which only calls into question the strong evidence of missing blood.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:47 PM

07-26-2009, 01:48 PM

Hey William!

It has been posted that there was a mixture of Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's blood on the glove but I have not been able to find it. I think it was TV who posted that Gary Sims found one mixture but it was not positive that it was Simpson's blood.

Also, no one can figure out how Ron and Nicole's blood got inside the glove in the finger area.

It's in the criminal trial evidence that OJ Simpson's DNA and the DNA of both victims was on the glove singularly and mixed together. Maybe you can't figure out why the blood was in the fingers of the glove but it's there so he caused it to be there in some way that we'll never know.

07-26-2009, 01:49 PM

Hey,

As one of the foremost forensic craftsmen would say, something wrong.

You need to research why Henry Lee said 'something wrong'. You and others have been misstating what he was referring to for a long time.

07-26-2009, 01:50 PM

Let me stand corrected, which only calls into question the strong evidence of missing blood.

There is no proof of missing blood. Even if there was there is no way that 1.6 ml of blood could account for all the blood evidence.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:52 PM

So you accept that he was in the house with no proof but you don't accept he was behind Kato's room with proof?

There was blood found in the house but none behind Kato's quarters.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:53 PM

You need to research why Henry Lee said 'something wrong'. You and others have been misstating what he was referring to for a long time.

I just repeated what he said and it may fit a group of scenarios.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:54 PM

There is no proof of missing blood. Even if there was there is no way that 1.6 ml of blood could account for all the blood evidence.

I agree that the prosecution failed to prove that no blood was missing.

07-26-2009, 01:55 PM

I agree that the prosecution failed to prove that no blood was missing.

Stop twisting. You might hinder your physical recovery.

07-26-2009, 01:56 PM

I just repeated what he said and it may fit a group of scenarios.

He was specifically asked what he meant and he specifically explained what he meant and he never said that in his mind it fit a group of scenarios.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 01:58 PM

And in this case they found tons of evidence. Lie or No Lie. Lucky them.

Correction-allegedly found.

07-26-2009, 01:59 PM

There was blood found in the house but none behind Kato's quarters.

Not true. Blood (OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown) was found on the glove behind Kato's quarters and positive presumptive tests for blood were obtained by Henry Lee on the air conditioner and a cable.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:00 PM

Stop twisting. You might hinder your physical recovery.

No twisting allowed. Since the prosecution decided to deny the charge that blood was missing by the evidence, the burden of proof, which they failed, fell to them.

07-26-2009, 02:00 PM

Correction-allegedly found.

No proof that any of the evidence was 'allegedly' found. It was found.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:02 PM

Not true. Blood (OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown) was found on the glove behind Kato's quarters and positive presumptive tests for blood were obtained by Henry Lee on the air conditioner and a cable.

There was no blood found in the area behind Kato's quarters and no sign of anyone being back there before the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

07-26-2009, 02:03 PM

No twisting allowed. Since the prosecution decided to deny the charge that blood was missing by the evidence, the burden of proof, which they failed, fell to them.

No proof. No blood missing and the amount that would have been missing would be negligible and not useful for what you and the rest try to say was done with it.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:03 PM

No proof that any of the evidence was 'allegedly' found. It was found.

It was testified to being found by the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:04 PM

No proof. No blood missing and the amount that would have been missing would be negligible and not useful for what you and the rest try to say was done with it.

Pray tell, what you say I think was done with it?

07-26-2009, 02:05 PM

There was no blood found in the area behind Kato's quarters and no sign of anyone being back there before the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

You're wrong, William. You know the blood evidence on the glove. I'd almost forgotten how you like to parse words.

07-26-2009, 02:08 PM

Pray tell, what you say I think was done with it?

You don't have to pray -- I'll gladly tell you. You think the 1.6 ml of blood was planted in order to frame OJ Simpson. If that's not what you think then say so in plain English. Be direct.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 02:08 PM

Let me stand corrected, which only calls into question the strong evidence of missing blood.

William,

Since the nurse gave three different accounts of how much blood he drew. If I am reading the gist of his testimony from the civil trial, he claims that he did not know how much blood he drew.

However, his responsibility for that blood and the amount inside the vial ended the moment he slapped the certificate on it and handed it over to Vanatter. He was responsible for it after that. The certficate that was seen by the defense had the wrong date on it and no one could explain it. However, I don't remember if the nurse ever was asked by the DA's if he filled this out and if he wrote the wrong date on it.

Also, it appears to me that after the nurse handed it off to Vanatter to book into evidence, he handed it off to Fung to have it booked but the blood was booked until the 14, 2 days after being taken from Simpson? I think I have that right. If this is the case, then who was in control of the vial before it was booked? Who was responsible for it?

Also, didn't Greg Mathesion also testify, in think in the civil trial that he also underestimated how much blood was in the vial? I find it odd that two people underestimated the amount of the blood in the vial and the amount was the same. When did Mathesion realize he too made a "mistake"?

If this came out in the criminal trial, I don't remember it.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:11 PM

Hi Rose, you are correct Fuhrman did write that happened after he had returned from Bundy where Rokahr had just photographed him pointing at the Bundy glove. What Fuhrman evidently never knew was when he was at Bundy Vannatter (page 32 of his book) had first seen the blood drops on driveway, followed them out to the Bronco, and saw blood inside the Bronco on the passenger side of the center console. Vannatter wrote he then retraced the drops back to the front door of Simpson’s house. Although Vannatter never said how he opened the Rockingham gate it’s very possible he set the gate to the pedestrian mode so that it could be opened without activating it or by using a key.

bobaugust

I will have to add very possible to the list.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:14 PM

William,

Since the nurse gave three different accounts of how much blood he drew. If I am reading the gist of his testimony from the civil trial, he claims that he did not know how much blood he drew.

However, his responsibility for that blood and the amount inside the vial ended the moment he slapped the certificate on it and handed it over to Vanatter. He was responsible for it after that. The certficate that was seen by the defense had the wrong date on it and no one could explain it. However, I don't remember if the nurse ever was asked by the DA's if he filled this out and if he wrote the wrong date on it.

Also, it appears to me that after the nurse handed it off to Vanatter to book into evidence, he handed it off to Fung to have it booked but the blood was booked until the 14, 2 days after being taken from Simpson? I think I have that right. If this is the case, then who was in control of the vial before it was booked? Who was responsible for it?

Also, didn't Greg Mathesion also testify, in think in the civil trial that he also underestimated how much blood was in the vial? I find it odd that two people underestimated the amount of the blood in the vial and the amount was the same. When did Mathesion realize he too made a "mistake"?

If this came out in the criminal trial, I don't remember it.

The nurse's testimony changed more times than the wind,:). I am not sure about Mathesson's testimony and will look when I am feeling up to it. There is no doubt that the chain of custody of that vial is questionable.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:16 PM

You're wrong, William. You know the blood evidence on the glove. I'd almost forgotten how you like to parse words.

The glove allegedly found behind the quarters where there was no evidence of anyone being back there before the soon to be convicted perjurer.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 02:17 PM

I agree that the prosecution failed to prove that no blood was missing.

William,

IMO, the DA's should have let this alone. The more they tried to bring it back to the nurse and that it was his error, the worse it was for them. Doing that video tape of the nurse, IMO, totally sunk them on this issue. While it was done legally, the circumstances and reasons for doing it made them look they were trying to explain away something that they knew they couldn't explain.

IMO, they should have used the "spillage" defense. They should have made Collin Y their fall guy on this. That he did spill blood by accident and there is no way he could have known how much he blood he spilled. As they left it, Collin Y not only said he spilled blood but he knew how much he did spill.

It never made any sense to me why they would challenge the nurse. His experience alone should have been a warning to them. IMO.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:17 PM

You don't have to pray -- I'll gladly tell you. You think the 1.6 ml of blood was planted in order to frame OJ Simpson. If that's not what you think then say so in plain English. Be direct.

That's true but I thought you were going to be more specific in your claims as to what I think.

07-26-2009, 02:18 PM

It was testified to being found by the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

Sorry, William, the notion that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove with the intention of framing OJ Simpson is 'not supported by the record... It's a theory without factual support."

Hmm...now where have we seen these words before? Oh, that's right, Judge Ito included them in his ruling about whether or not Mark Fuhrman could have planted the glove.

07-26-2009, 02:19 PM

That's true but I thought you were going to be more specific in your claims as to what I think.

I don't claim to be a mindreader like some of our posters. I'm only going by statements you've made in the past.

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:21 PM

William,

IMO, the DA's should have let this alone. The more they tried to bring it back to the nurse and that it was his error, the worse it was for them. Doing that video tape of the nurse, IMO, totally sunk them on this issue. While it was done legally, the circumstances and reasons for doing it made them look they were trying to explain away something that they knew they couldn't explain.

IMO, they should have used the "spillage" defense. They should have made Collin Y their fall guy on this. That he did spill blood by accident and there is no way he could have known how much he blood he spilled. As they left it, Collin Y not only said he spilled blood but he knew how much he did spill.

It never made any sense to me why they would challenge the nurse. His experience alone should have been a warning to them. IMO.

I agree and am reminded that desperate times call for desperate measures, :).

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:23 PM

Sorry, William, the notion that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove with the intention of framing OJ Simpson is 'not supported by the record... It's a theory without factual support."

Hmm...now where have we seen these words before? Oh, that's right, Judge Ito included them in his ruling about whether or not Mark Fuhrman could have planted the glove.

That was Ito's reasoning until after he heard some of the evidence of motive means and opportunity and allowed the defense to call MF back and he took the 5th, remember?

William Anthony

07-26-2009, 02:23 PM

I don't claim to be a mindreader like some of our posters. I'm only going by statements you've made in the past.

Alrighty then.

07-26-2009, 02:29 PM

The nurse's testimony changed more times than the wind,:). I am not sure about Mathesson's testimony and will look when I am feeling up to it. There is no doubt that the chain of custody of that vial is questionable.

No procedures or policies were violated by Vannatter taking the blood vial to Fung.

07-26-2009, 02:30 PM

That was Ito's reasoning until after he heard some of the evidence of motive means and opportunity and allowed the defense to call MF back and he took the 5th, remember?

Did he reverse himself?

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 02:32 PM

That was Ito's reasoning until after he heard some of the evidence of motive means and opportunity and allowed the defense to call MF back and he took the 5th, remember?

William,

I remember Judge Ito's ruling and I remember thinking at the time, why did he make that ruling because he allowed the defense to present the glove as being planted.

However, when I read the ruling, it is clear that Judge Ito, IMO, gave himself a lot of wiggle room. It appears to me that "framing" meant that MF would have had to do it knowing that Simpson was innocent. There was not one action by MF or the other lead detectives that stated that Simpson was innocent or was not involved in the crime.

Judge Ito's ruling also doesn't say that the glove was not planted, just that there was no eye witness to support that MF did plant the glove. While I believe MF did do it, I do think between his testimony and Kato's, if MF is telling the truth about the gates, that someone placed that glove there after Simpson left for the airport.

IMO.

07-26-2009, 02:43 PM

William,

I remember Judge Ito's ruling and I remember thinking at the time, why did he make that ruling because he allowed the defense to present the glove as being planted.

However, when I read the ruling, it is clear that Judge Ito, IMO, gave himself a lot of wiggle room. It appears to me that "framing" meant that MF would have had to do it knowing that Simpson was innocent. There was not one action by MF or the other lead detectives that stated that Simpson was innocent or was not involved in the crime. Ito never mentioned the words not guilty or innocent in his ruling.

Judge Ito's ruling also doesn't say that the glove was not planted, just that there was no eye witness to support that MF did plant the glove. Ito said what he meant -- it would require a leap in both law and logic. While I believe MF did do it, I do think between his testimony and Kato's, if MF is telling the truth about the gates, that someone placed that glove there after Simpson left for the airport. You're cherry picking what is convenient for you to believe regarding Mark Fuhrman's statements. Remember -- he's a convicted perjurer.
IMO.

Judge Ito even says in his ruling that there's no evidence for an unreasonable argument -- let alone a reasonable one.

martin II

07-26-2009, 04:31 PM

They took a trip to Cabo San Lucas with friends in April 1994. When they returned Simpson was upset because Nicole was acting distant toward him. That's when he told Faye that he would kill Nicole if he caught her with another man. It was shortly after that he sent the IRS letter to get back at her and make life difficult for her because she dumped him. They divorced in 1992, reconciled in 1993 and he killed her in 1994. You have your timeline wrong on the sequence of events.

oj was divoiced from nicole she received a great package.
exactly why should he further expose himself to cover her financial mistakes.
she said she did not want anything to do with him as far as you are concerned.

She was till trying to play oj for her benefit and she got rejected leagally which caused her to blow up.Wheb she left him she had $400,000 CASH for herself and $10,000 a mnoth for the kids.She was happy and walked away and then made decisions that blew it.

socaldiva

07-26-2009, 04:49 PM

oj weas divoiced from nicole she received a great package.
exactly why should he further expose himself to cover her financial mistakes.

What "finanical mistakes" are you speaking of? Feeding & housing Orenthal's
children?

Orenthal was willing to say Nicole lived at Rockingham prior to being rejected by Nicole. He only threatened her with the IRS because she rejected him. It seems you have it backwards.

martin II

07-26-2009, 04:57 PM

No procedures or policies were violated by Vannatter taking the blood vial to Fung.

Fung said no one had ever brought blood samples to him at a crime scene.
why didn't vanhatter walk across the street and give the sample to SID??

07-26-2009, 06:01 PM

Fung said no one had ever brought blood samples to him at a crime scene.
why didn't vanhatter walk across the street and give the sample to SID??

Just because no one had ever brought Fung blood samples before doesn't mean it was in violation of anything. You know the explanation of the DR numbers so I'm not to go through the whole thing again.

07-26-2009, 06:06 PM

What "finanical mistakes" are you speaking of? Feeding & housing Orenthal's
children?

Orenthal was willing to say Nicole lived at Rockingham prior to being rejected by Nicole. He only threatened her with the IRS because she rejected him. It seems you have it backwards.

He stole cable, stole keys from Nicole, took Nicole's jewelry when he was going to be arrested, still owes the state of CA a huge amount of taxes, hides money from the Goldmans and robbed memorabilia dealers at gunpoint and we're supposed to believe he balked at a little funny business with the IRS? :rolleyes:

martin II

07-26-2009, 06:12 PM

Just because no one had ever brought Fung blood samples before doesn't mean it was in violation of anything. You know the explanation of the DR numbers so I'm not to go through the whole thing again.

all blood goes to sid not to crime scenes or driven around in a cops pocket.

07-26-2009, 06:18 PM

all blood goes to sid not to crime scenes or driven around in a cops pocket.

Vannatter gave a reasonable explanation for his actions. He wasn't in violation of any policy, procedure or law.

socaldiva

07-26-2009, 06:38 PM

He stole cable, stole keys from Nicole, took Nicole's jewelry when he was going to be arrested, still owes the state of CA a huge amount of taxes, hides money from the Goldmans and robbed memorabilia dealers at gunpoint and we're supposed to believe he balked at a little funny business with the IRS? :rolleyes:

Excellent point relative to the California taxes he STILL owes!

07-26-2009, 06:46 PM

Excellent point relative to the California taxes he STILL owes!

His vindictiveness toward Nicole was more important than the needs of his children who he knew would be uprooted again if she couldn't live at Bundy.

bobaugust

07-26-2009, 06:55 PM

Mr. August,

You are being very misleading with this post. You know as well as I do that the picture taken was not taken because of the evidence that was said to have been found later on the fence.

GreenIce, no I’m not being misleading I’m simply stating what the evidence is. What does it matter why the photograph was taken? The fact is that crime scene photograph was taken the morning after the murders and it clearly shows one of the blood drops on the rear gate that wasn’t collected later that morning and that the defense tried to claim wasn’t even on the rear gate that day. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

martin II

07-26-2009, 06:58 PM

He stole cable, stole keys from Nicole, took Nicole's jewelry when he was going to be arrested, still owes the state of CA a huge amount of taxes, hides money from the Goldmans and robbed memorabilia dealers at gunpoint and we're supposed to believe he balked at a little funny business with the IRS? :rolleyes:

paula took her spot.nicole asked oj so she could make some more money using him again and he told her not anymore lady you on your own.

martin II

07-26-2009, 07:03 PM

His vindictiveness toward Nicole was more important than the needs of his children who he knew would be uprooted again if she couldn't live at Bundy.

he gave his kids $10,000 a month.All she had to do is rent the bundy condo but she wanted to sell it and pocket all the money.

07-26-2009, 07:07 PM

paula took her spot.nicole asked oj so she could make some more money using him again and he told her not anymore lady you on your own.

Paula didn't take her spot. He had no intentions of marrying Paula and starting a family with her and Paula knew it. That's one of the reasons she broke it off with him on June 12 -- she saw the handwriting on the wall.

IIRC, he didn't call Nicole a lady -- I remember a few more colorful things that Nicole said he called her in relation to the IRS matter.

07-26-2009, 07:09 PM

he gave his kids $10,000 a month.All she had to do is rent the bundy condo but she wanted to sell it and pocket all the money.

She and Simpson thought she was going to move back to Rockingham and she could have used the Bundy property as an investment. When she decided she was no longer interested in living with him again she wanted to live at Bundy with the children. That's when he decided to be a jerk and not allow her to do that. It was all about control with Simpson and in the end he even controlled her right to live.

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 08:25 PM

all blood goes to sid not to crime scenes or driven around in a cops pocket.

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter say that he had never done that before, bring a reference samples to the crime scene? I stand by my post a few days ago, Vanatter did this knowing what he was letting himself for. He wanted the focus and the attention on his mistakes, he wanted it on his decisions and his actions, he did want it MF and the other detectives.

What is interesting is where was Tom Lange when the blood was being drawn? Weren't both detectives there? Weren't both detectives there when they asked the nurse to take a look at his hand and get a picture taken of one cut only?

GreenIce

07-26-2009, 08:47 PM

GreenIce, no I’m not being misleading I’m simply stating what the evidence is. What does it matter why the photograph was taken? The fact is that crime scene photograph was taken the morning after the murders and it clearly shows one of the blood drops on the rear gate that wasn’t collected later that morning and that the defense tried to claim wasn’t even on the rear gate that day. That photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

It matters why the photograph was taken and you know that. It proves that Dennis Fung was never told about the blood drops on the back gate, it proves that no detective or police officer pointed out these blood drops to Fung or the photographer. Rokhar was there to take pictures of the evidence, he was there to take picture of exits of the crime scene and he was there to take photos of the bodies. He took pictures of evidence that clearly was evidence but was never collected, such as the piece of paper by Nicole's head.

The photgrapher was given a tour of the crime scene and never once was the back gate ever mentioned in regards to evidence--which if MF is telling the truth, a bloody fingerprint was left on the back gate.

I believe he was told to take pictures of the coins and these coins were in the back of condo---yet never directed to the back gate.

Close ups of the drops on the back gate taken 3 weeks later does not prove they were there the morning of the murders.

You must also consider that not only was there no pictures taken of the back gate for this evidence, no pictures were taken of the wisps of blood that MF said he saw---he watched the photographer take on picture of the blood drop on the outside of the Bronco but never directed him to the wisps of blood he says he found on the outside of the Bronco--wisps later Fung found on the inside of the Bronco.

07-26-2009, 09:36 PM

Mr. August,

It matters why the photograph was taken and you know that. It proves that Dennis Fung was never told about the blood drops on the back gate, it proves that no detective or police officer pointed out these blood drops to Fung or the photographer. Rokhar was there to take pictures of the evidence, he was there to take picture of exits of the crime scene and he was there to take photos of the bodies. He took pictures of evidence that clearly was evidence but was never collected, such as the piece of paper by Nicole's head.

The photgrapher was given a tour of the crime scene and never once was the back gate ever mentioned in regards to evidence--which if MF is telling the truth, a bloody fingerprint was left on the back gate.

I believe he was told to take pictures of the coins and these coins were in the back of condo---yet never directed to the back gate.

Close ups of the drops on the back gate taken 3 weeks later does not prove they were there the morning of the murders.

You must also consider that not only was there no pictures taken of the back gate for this evidence, no pictures were taken of the wisps of blood that MF said he saw---he watched the photographer take on picture of the blood drop on the outside of the Bronco but never directed him to the wisps of blood he says he found on the outside of the Bronco--wisps later Fung found on the inside of the Bronco.

Mark Fuhrman didn't find the blood on the back gate. It was pointed out to him by someione else and several officers testified to seeing it so whether or not it was really there isn't contingent on whether or not Mark Fuhrman is telling the truth.

I'm not getting the wisps of blood. Are you saying the wisps were on the outside of the Bronco and somehow they ended up on the inside of the Bronco? Was Mark Fuhrman present when the Bronco pictures were taken?

weezer

07-26-2009, 10:07 PM

socaldiva

07-27-2009, 12:18 AM

His vindictiveness toward Nicole was more important than the needs of his children who he knew would be uprooted again if she couldn't live at Bundy.

More evidence of Orenthal being a sociopath imo.

GreenIce

07-27-2009, 06:59 AM

all blood goes to sid not to crime scenes or driven around in a cops pocket.

Martin,

Bottom line, everything Vanatter did not only with Simpson reference sample but lying about how he got Ron's and Nicole's reference reeks of corrupt and contaminated evidence. How did Simpson's blood get into Ron and Nicole's reference samples?

Not only did have the reference samples but he also had access to the lab. I do not think he would involved anybody else. He knows he was covered. Hell, looked how he covered MF. However, IMO, it is clear, VA never trusted MF and again, IMO, both Lange and Vanatter boil with rage over MF. I think they are more pissed off at him them Simpson.

However, they made the choice to cover for him and they invited the heat down on themselves. It really was Lange and VA's party, IMO.

martin II

07-27-2009, 08:52 AM

martin II

07-27-2009, 09:00 AM

She and Simpson thought she was going to move back to Rockingham and she could have used the Bundy property as an investment. When she decided she was no longer interested in living with him again she wanted to live at Bundy with the children. That's when he decided to be a jerk and not allow her to do that. It was all about control with Simpson and in the end he even controlled her right to live.

not true
during the trial year she asked oj to let her move to rockingham he said no wait any see what happens after the year is over. then he and paula got back togeather and she was left with her real estate blunder.

weezer

07-27-2009, 10:44 AM

O.J.'s Suicide Note

To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much.

weezer

07-27-2009, 01:11 PM

07-27-2009, 01:19 PM

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter say that he had never done that before, bring a reference samples to the crime scene? I stand by my post a few days ago, Vanatter did this knowing what he was letting himself for. He wanted the focus and the attention on his mistakes, he wanted it on his decisions and his actions, he did want it MF and the other detectives.

What is interesting is where was Tom Lange when the blood was being drawn? Weren't both detectives there? Weren't both detectives there when they asked the nurse to take a look at his hand and get a picture taken of one cut only?

You have repeatedly claimed to have read Lange and Vannatter's book as well as others that detail the circumstances of the blood draw. Why are you pretending now that you don't know whether or not Lange was there? Is this some sort of bizarre strategy on your part to make Lange and Vannatter look like part of a conspiracy? I'm not really sure why I even addressed this because you never answer anyone that challenges you but at least everyone will now be aware you're being, at the very least, disingenuous.

07-27-2009, 01:24 PM

as told by friends/family, orenthal made a big deal out of hating Nicole's smoking. What I find strange is that on her birthday, a month before he murdered her, he bought her a very expensive lighter. it looks like he would have done anything to get her back -- that must have really triggered rage when she said no.

I definitely think her rejection was a big part of his rage. He was getting older and she was young and moving on. I don't think the rejection at the recital was the reason -- just the icing on the cake. He also figured he would get it done and be in Chicago before the body was found. Kato the dog and Ron spoiled that plan.

martin II

07-27-2009, 01:56 PM

You have repeatedly claimed to have read Lange and Vannatter's book as well as others that detail the circumstances of the blood draw. Why are you pretending now that you don't know whether or not Lange was there? Is this some sort of bizarre strategy on your part to make Lange and Vannatter look like part of a conspiracy? I'm not really sure why I even addressed this because you never answer anyone that challenges you but at least everyone will now be aware you're being, at the very least, disingenuous.

tv
lang was at the oj interview and the blood was drawn after the interview but when the conversation is about the blood draw only vanhatter is mentioned. Where was lang when vanhatter was manipulating oj bllod sample and carrying it around in his pocket.

All samples end up at SID vanhatter was at SID why didn't he give the sample to sid then and get thatdn number assigned. why did he decide to carry the oj sample to ojs house and give it to fung who did not want to accept it. why bring blood to a crime scene where blood was being collected.
fung said in his history no one had ever brought blood to him to a crime scene.This was against procedure.

weezer

07-27-2009, 01:58 PM

tv
lang was at the oj interview and the blood was drawn after the interview but when the conversation is about the blood draw only vanhatter is mentioned. Where was lang when vanhatter was manipulating oj bllod sample and carrying it around in his pocket.

All samples end up at SID vanhatter was at SID why didn't he give the sample to sid then and get thatdn number assigned. why did he decide to carry the oj sample to ojs house and give it to fung who did not want to accept it. why bring blood to a crime scene where blood was being collected.
fung said in his history no one had ever brought blood to him to a crime scene.This was against procedure.

martin, gi is reading the book -- you should ask her these questions. do you have a link to the delivery of the blood being against procedure? thought not.

07-27-2009, 02:04 PM

tv
lang was at the oj interview and the blood was drawn after the interview but when the conversation is about the blood draw only vanhatter is mentioned. Where was lang when vanhatter was manipulating oj bllod sample and carrying it around in his pocket.

All samples end up at SID vanhatter was at SID why didn't he give the sample to sid then and get thatdn number assigned. why did he decide to carry the oj sample to ojs house and give it to fung who did not want to accept it. why bring blood to a crime scene where blood was being collected.
fung said in his history no one had ever brought blood to him to a crime scene.This was against procedure.

It very clearly says (starting on page 89) in Lange and Vannatter's book that both were present and goes into detail about what happened.

If you know of a procedure that Vannatter was in violation of by transporting the blood to Fung please link to it.

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:11 PM

I definitely think her rejection was a big part of his rage. He was getting older and she was young and moving on. I don't think the rejection at the recital was the reason -- just the icing on the cake. He also figured he would get it done and be in Chicago before the body was found. Kato the dog and Ron spoiled that plan.

CR testified strongly that oj had decided that he and nicole was finished. He stated that oj was very happy with his decision and that paula was ojs woman. nicole was also seeing other men and told friends that she was happy.OJ made it clear to friends that paula and he was togeather and nicole knew this. When nicole had made a mess of her realestate situation she decided to ask oj to help her make some money without paying the capital gains tax. OJ had no more interest in helping her or being involved in her schem so he told her no.
Why do you think oj should have exposed himself if they were finished. she was on her own at her choice and it was time for her to take full responsibility for her decisions. Was he supposed to come to her rescue for ever?

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:16 PM

It very clearly says (starting on page 89) in Lange and Vannatter's book that both were present and goes into detail about what happened. For one poster who has claimed over and over again to have read the book to pretend that she doesn't know the answers to her questions is not honest and I'm tired of things like this going unchallenged.

If you know of a procedure that Vannatter was in violation of by transporting the blood to Fung please link to it.

Sample collection 101
Never bring blood samples from a place to a active crime scene. Ask Fung.

07-27-2009, 02:26 PM

CR testified strongly that oj had decided that he and nicole was finished. He stated that oj was very happy with his decision and that paula was ojs woman. nicole was also seeing other men and told friends that she was happy.OJ made it clear to friends that paula and he was togeather and nicole knew this. When nicole had made a mess of her realestate situation she decided to ask oj to help her make some money without paying the capital gains tax. OJ had no more interest in helping her or being involved in her schem so he told her no.
Why do you think oj should have exposed himself if they were finished. she was on her own at her choice and it was time for her to take full responsibility for her decisions. Was he supposed to come to her rescue for ever?

Christian Reichardt was an OJ Simpson butt kisser like so many others so what he had to say Simpson told him I take with a grain of salt. OJ Simpson had no intention of making a life with Paula and Paula knew this -- that's why she broke up with him on June 12. You can say whatever you want about his IRS decision. What he did was legal but he was a creep for doing it. His young children were involved but as usual he didn't put them first. I'm reminded of the time he broke Nicole's door and she kept begging him not to wake the kids but he wouldn't listen because it's all about venting his rage whenever he feels the need.

Come to her rescue forever? Geez, martin, he killed her.

07-27-2009, 02:27 PM

Sample collection 101
Never bring blood samples from a place to a active crime scene. Ask Fung.

Please link to the actual procedure violation. Fung didn't say it was against procedure. He said no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene before.

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:37 PM

I definitely think her rejection was a big part of his rage. He was getting older and she was young and moving on. I don't think the rejection at the recital was the reason -- just the icing on the cake. He also figured he would get it done and be in Chicago before the body was found. Kato the dog and Ron spoiled that plan.

tv
it seems that if oj still wanted nicole all he had to do is toss paula and tell nicole she could moved back to rockingham. He didn't although she asked him to allow her many times. He consistantly told her NO. So it does not look like he wanted her. You need to look at what happened not what you think the case was. She was begging for him to let her move to rockingham and he said no.

i think nicoles request that oj allow her to use his address was only her first move to get back there living on a regular basis. OJ understood this and did not want her in his house so he stopped her at the gate by giving her legal notice not to use his address. remember nicole had told him at the beginning of the year trial that he should let her move back because after the trial they would be togeather anyway.OJ said no. lets see what happens after the year trial. He told her. Her objective was to get back to Rockingham and oj would not allow her to do this.

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:41 PM

Please link to the actual procedure violation. Fung didn't say it was against procedure. He said no one had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene before.

it seems that lapd had some procedures but no one followed them.since no one had ever done what vanhatter did i assume that everyone knew it should not have been done as no one had done it.The fact that no one had done it before sets the procedure. people follow what has been the procedure in the past.

07-27-2009, 02:45 PM

tv
it seems that if oj still wanted nicole all he had to do is toss paula and tell nicole she could moved back to rockingham. He didn't although she asked him to allow her many times. He consistantly told her NO. So it does not look like he wanted her. You need to look at what happened not what you think the case was. She was begging for him to let her move to rockingham and he said no.

i think nicoles request that oj allow her to use his address was only her first move to get back there living on a regular basis. OJ understood this and did not want her in his house so he stopped her at the gate by giving her legal notice not to use his address. remember nicole had told him at the beginning of the year trial that he should let her move back because after the trial they would be togeather anyway.OJ said no. lets see what happens after the year trial. He told her. Her objective was to get back to Rockingham and oj would not allow her to do this.

At the end of her life Nicole did not want Simpson. All their acquaintances backed this up. They took a trip to Cabo San Lucas and when they returned Nicole had decided to move on without him. If you don't want to believe that it's okay with me.

07-27-2009, 02:48 PM

it seems that lapd had some procedures but no one followed them.since no one had ever done what vanhatter did i assume that everyone knew it should not have been done as no one had done it.The fact that no one had done it before sets the procedure. people follow what has been the procedure in the past.

So you don't have a link or proof that he violated procedure? There's a policy and procedure manual that outlines everything in detail. If such a procedure existed in writing there's no doubt it would have been brought out by the defense in both trials.

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:48 PM

Christian Reichardt was an OJ Simpson butt kisser like so many others so what he had to say Simpson told him I take with a grain of salt. OJ Simpson had no intention of making a life with Paula and Paula knew this -- that's why she broke up with him on June 12. You can say whatever you want about his IRS decision. What he did was legal but he was a creep for doing it. His young children were involved but as usual he didn't put them first. I'm reminded of the time he broke Nicole's door and she kept begging him not to wake the kids but he wouldn't listen because it's all about venting his rage whenever he feels the need.

Come to her rescue forever? Geez, martin, he killed her.

ojs children always had a place to live. if nicole was not trying to make some quick illegal money they could be living at bundy or a rental apartment like GG.
You cannot blame oj for her bad realestate decisions.
you accept fays comments about oj but reject CR testimony.

07-27-2009, 02:52 PM

ojs children always had a place to live. if nicole was not trying to make some quick illegal money they could be living at bundy or a rental apartment like GG.
You cannot blame oj for her bad realestate decisions.
you accept fays comments about oj but reject CR testimony.

Believe what you want about the IRS situation. I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered to Simpson if his family had to live in a rental apartment. It really doesn't have anything to do with the murders except it shows that OJ Simpson is a jerk and made Nicole not want to have anything to do with him even more than before.

martin II

07-27-2009, 02:56 PM

So you don't have a link or proof that he violated procedure? There's a policy and procedure manual that outlines everything in detail. If such a procedure existed in writing there's no doubt it would have been brought out by the defense in both trials.

obviously the detectives did not follow procedures,
vanhatter or lang demanded fung bring the bloody grove from rockingham to bundy. fung refused but was told to bring it anywasy.he did but refused to take the glove out of the plastic bag. fung was trying to follow procedure
they forced him to break it. vanhatter lied to the judge to get the search warrant, you think he followed procedure.

07-27-2009, 02:58 PM

obviously the detectives did not follow procedures,
vanhatter or lang demanded fung bring the bloody grove from rockingham to bundy. fung refused but was told to bring it anywasy.he did but refused to take the glove out of the plastic bag. fung was trying to follow procedure
they forced him to break it. vanhatter lied to the judge to get the search warrant, you think he followed procedure.

Good try on changing the subject from Vannatter taking the vial to Rockingham. I'm still waiting for you tell us or link to the procedure violation. It's funny how you defend Fung when it suits you so you can make Vannatter look bad. Usually you're talking about what a screw up he was.

martin II

07-27-2009, 03:11 PM

Believe what you want about the IRS situation. I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered to Simpson if his family had to live in a rental apartment. It really doesn't have anything to do with the murders except it shows that OJ Simpson is a jerk and made Nicole not want to have anything to do with him even more than before.

nicole made bad decisions with the money oj gave her at divoice. no one is to blame but her.Why do you belive that oj could not be happy without nicole.
especially since paula had taken her place.Paula was a beautiful smart woman that had a career
why wouldn:t oj take her over nicole.gees.

weezer

07-27-2009, 03:16 PM

CR testified strongly that oj had decided that he and nicole was finished. He stated that oj was very happy with his decision and that paula was ojs woman. nicole was also seeing other men and told friends that she was happy.OJ made it clear to friends that paula and he was togeather and nicole knew this. When nicole had made a mess of her realestate situation she decided to ask oj to help her make some money without paying the capital gains tax. OJ had no more interest in helping her or being involved in her schem so he told her no.
Why do you think oj should have exposed himself if they were finished. she was on her own at her choice and it was time for her to take full responsibility for her decisions. Was he supposed to come to her rescue for ever?

did CR also testify to the beatings orenthal inflicted on Nicole?

even orenthal stated paula wasn't his 'woman' -- whatever the hell that means.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the capital gains scheme wasn't orenthal's -- you know how he hates for someone to get his 'stuff'.

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

socaldiva

07-27-2009, 03:17 PM

martin II

07-27-2009, 03:19 PM

socaldiva

07-27-2009, 03:22 PM

I would think that if Vanhatter was in violation, the evidence would not have been allowed to come into the case. It was allowed, therefore no violation.

martin II

07-27-2009, 03:30 PM

Good try on changing the subject from Vannatter taking the vial to Rockingham. I'm still waiting for you tell us or link to the procedure violation. It's funny how you defend Fung when it suits you so you can make Vannatter look bad. Usually you're talking about what a screw up he was.

Some prosecution withesses screwded up some time but not every time.
fung was right to refuse to accept blood samples comming into a crime scene.
when he is right he is right whe he isd wrong he is wrong.
when he said vanhatter was wrong to bring blood to him in a crime he was right and everyone agrees but you.imo

socaldiva

07-27-2009, 03:33 PM

*snip*
when he is right he is right whe he isd wrong he is wrong.

More like when you like what you think he said. I don't think Fung rejected the sample. I believe he took it & logged it IIRC.

weezer

07-27-2009, 03:48 PM

nicole made bad decisions with the money oj gave her at divoice. no one is to blame but her.Why do you belive that oj could not be happy without nicole.
especially since paula had taken her place.Paula was a beautiful smart woman that had a career
why wouldn:t oj take her over nicole.gees.

tv -- martin is baiting you. he understands that orenthal was dumped by paula and couldn't even hook up with kato's friend -- lol

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

weezer

07-27-2009, 03:49 PM

Don't you remember? Paula dumped Orenthal the same day that he murdered Nicole. NO ONE wanted him.

All he can get now is crackheads.

and it looks like he tried to cripple her to keep her from getting away!

07-27-2009, 04:03 PM

Some prosecution withesses screwded up some time but not every time.
fung was right to refuse to accept blood samples comming into a crime scene.
when he is right he is right whe he isd wrong he is wrong.
when he said vanhatter was wrong to bring blood to him in a crime he was right and everyone agrees but you.imo

I just want the proof that an actual police procedure was violated. All you have to do is provide it -- if you can't do that I'll just move on.

07-27-2009, 04:06 PM

tv -- martin is baiting you. he understands that orenthal was dumped by paula and couldn't even hook up with kato's friend -- lol

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

Hmm.. I am starting to feel baited because martin has to know his version isn't true. OJ Simpson even called an old girlfriend that day named Gretchen IIRC. Sounds like desperation to me. Paula testified in the civil trial that she dumped him on June 12 so he was without a woman when Nicole was murdered -- or maybe I should say he was without a 'girl' as he likes to refer to women.

His suicide note says it all -- :)

07-27-2009, 04:09 PM

and it looks like he tried to cripple her to keep her from getting away!

Yep, but she's a tough one!

martin II

07-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Hmm.. I am starting to feel baited because martin has to know his version isn't true. OJ Simpson even called an old girlfriend that day named Gretchen IIRC. Sounds like desperation to me. Paula testified in the civil trial that she dumped him on June 12 so he was without a woman when Nicole was murdered -- or maybe I should say he was without a 'girl' as he likes to refer to women.

His suicide note says it all -- :)

tv
paula was sleeping with oj on 6/16 at RK house so that was a dump for one day or two.Paula was pissed because nicole kept getting in the way on 6/12.
she wanted oj to tell nicole in front of all that she was his woman. oj did not want to cause a problem by bringing paula to the recital.

eventually it was paulas father that caused the breakup with them after the trial. before the murders, looking at paula and nicole i can see where oj took paula over nicole.

weezer

07-27-2009, 04:51 PM

tv
paula was sleeping with oj on 6/16 at RK house so that was a dump for one day or two.Paula was pissed because nicole kept getting in the way on 6/12.
she wanted oj to tell nicole in front of all that she was his woman. oj did not want to cause a problem by bringing paula to the recital.

eventually it was paulas father that caused the breakup with them after the trial. before the murders, looking at paula and nicole i can see where oj took paula over nicole.

equally pretty women but obviously orenthal couldn't get over Nicole.

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

martin II

07-27-2009, 04:52 PM

Yep, but she's a tough one!

nicole was already away as she was dating no less than 7 different men. oj was dating paula and happy. no reason for oj to kill her.
the fact that they broke up does not mean that oj could not have some love for her.she was the mother of his children. he could love her for that but love her anymore as his woman. people can love each other for different reasons.

martin II

07-27-2009, 04:59 PM

Hmm.. I am starting to feel baited because martin has to know his version isn't true. OJ Simpson even called an old girlfriend that day named Gretchen IIRC. Sounds like desperation to me. Paula testified in the civil trial that she dumped him on June 12 so he was without a woman when Nicole was murdered -- or maybe I should say he was without a 'girl' as he likes to refer to women.

His suicide note says it all -- :)

oj is without a girlfriend on 6/12 so he decides to kill his ex.? hahaha

on one hand you say ojs problem is that he had all of these women he was dating and then say he had none on 6/12. which is true?

07-27-2009, 05:18 PM

oj is without a girlfriend on 6/12 so he decides to kill his ex.? hahaha

on one hand you say ojs problem is that he had all of these women he was dating and then say he had none on 6/12. which is true?

nope, it was a series of events that led to his rage. He couldn't handle Nicole's rejection.

What women did I say he was dating? Nicole had rejected him, Paula had dumped him and he called Gretchen which got him nowhere.

07-27-2009, 05:18 PM

nicole was already away as she was dating no less than 7 different men. oj was dating paula and happy. no reason for oj to kill her.
the fact that they broke up does not mean that oj could not have some love for her.she was the mother of his children. he could love her for that but love her anymore as his woman. people can love each other for different reasons.

OJ's world according to martin. The only thing I agree with is that he had no reason to kill her. No one deserves what OJ Simpson did to Ron and Nicole.

martin II

07-27-2009, 06:39 PM

nope, it was a series of events that led to his rage. He couldn't handle Nicole's rejection.

What women did I say he was dating? Nicole had rejected him, Paula had dumped him and he called Gretchen which got him nowhere.

you have stated that oj was always cheating on nicole with other women and this is the reason nicole wanted out. not only you but others have stated this, now all of a sudden you say he had no women.it was nicole that claimed that he had other women.you don't believe her?

GreenIce

07-27-2009, 06:54 PM

i thought her comments to friends was that she wanted her FREEDOM to play the field and have the freedom to see other men.its like she may have wanted to see if she still had it. But she dated 6-7 different men and these relationships all flammed out. After having her freedom for a while she decided that she wanted and asked oj to let her come back to him.So it did not seem that at that point she was running from oj.

Martin,

What we forget, Simpson also wanted his freedom. He knew it wasn't working and he knew that Nicole didn't know what she wanted and Nicole knew she didn't know what she wanted.

Both of them wanted out, it wasn't working.

GreenIce

07-27-2009, 07:24 PM

lang was there.

Martin,

I know Lange was there when the blood was drawn and he was there when VA took it and put it in his pocket and he was there when VA didn't take it to SID, so why is VA is taking all the heat for this? IMO, with Lange being there but not "really" being there, is just another sign that Lange was more then willing to turn his head to some of VA's activities.

It seems to me that there have been times in this case when were were lead to believe that certain people were together when they weren't and when they said they weren't together when they were. Example, VA during the notification. He was not with Phillips and Lange when they started talking to her.

Also, Phillips was sick as well, did you know that? He had some health issues, I think it was his heart. Seems to me VA was the one who was going to take the lumps for the investigation. IMO, I think this was a good plan on VA's part. He knew just how far he could go with certain people. IMO.

GreenIce

07-27-2009, 07:26 PM

you have stated that oj was always cheating on nicole with other women and this is the reason nicole wanted out. not only you but others have stated this, now all of a sudden you say he had no women.it was nicole that claimed that he had other women.you don't believe her?

Martin,

Didn't Simpson leave message to a model that for the first time in his life he was free, he was unattached and then told her where he was going and when he would back in LA?

martin II

07-27-2009, 07:47 PM

Martin,

Didn't Simpson leave message to a model that for the first time in his life he was free, he was unattached and then told her where he was going and when he would back in LA?

yes he made a date with Grethen Stockdale and she testified for the defence. he had dated her before and she had attended parties at his house.so he had a date when he returned but could not keep it.

martin II

07-27-2009, 07:53 PM

correction
but not love her as his woman

martin II

07-27-2009, 08:03 PM

Martin,

What we forget, Simpson also wanted his freedom. He knew it wasn't working and he knew that Nicole didn't know what she wanted and Nicole knew she didn't know what she wanted.

Both of them wanted out, it wasn't working.

CR testified very clearly that oj wanted out and was in fact out of the relationship and was very happy to be out.

martin II

07-27-2009, 08:10 PM

Martin,

I know Lange was there when the blood was drawn and he was there when VA took it and put it in his pocket and he was there when VA didn't take it to SID, so why is VA is taking all the heat for this? IMO, with Lange being there but not "really" being there, is just another sign that Lange was more then willing to turn his head to some of VA's activities.

It seems to me that there have been times in this case when were were lead to believe that certain people were together when they weren't and when they said they weren't together when they were. Example, VA during the notification. He was not with Phillips and Lange when they started talking to her.

Also, Phillips was sick as well, did you know that? He had some health issues, I think it was his heart. Seems to me VA was the one who was going to take the lumps for the investigation. IMO, I think this was a good plan on VA's part. He knew just how far he could go with certain people. IMO.

Does anyone know exactly where Phillips was when furhman found the glove?

socaldiva

07-27-2009, 08:19 PM

CR testified very clearly that oj wanted out and was in fact out of the relationship and was very happy to be out.

Maybe that's what Orenthal told him, but it appears to have been a lie ;)

weezer

07-27-2009, 08:41 PM

CR testified very clearly that oj wanted out and was in fact out of the relationship and was very happy to be out.

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

weezer

07-27-2009, 08:43 PM

Does anyone know exactly where Phillips was when furhman found the glove?

ask gi -- she's read the book.

martin II

07-27-2009, 09:00 PM

Martin,

What we forget, Simpson also wanted his freedom. He knew it wasn't working and he knew that Nicole didn't know what she wanted and Nicole knew she didn't know what she wanted.

Both of them wanted out, it wasn't working.

i think that nicole thought that because of the kids and oj had shown love for her that she could get him back whenever she wanted to.This accounts for he asking him to let her back and then saying she wanted her freedom. After having her freedom she seemed to miss the financial security she had with oj so she would give signals that she wanted to come back. She played this game until oj got tired and decided he was finished.In walks Paula and nicole tried to get in the way of their relationship but it did not work.

martin II

07-27-2009, 09:03 PM

ask gi -- she's read the book.

you should respect posters request of you.

07-27-2009, 10:15 PM

i think that nicole thought that because of the kids and oj had shown love for her that she could get him back whenever she wanted to.This accounts for he asking him to let her back and then saying she wanted her freedom. After having her freedom she seemed to miss the financial security she had with oj so she would give signals that she wanted to come back. She played this game until oj got tired and decided he was finished.In walks Paula and nicole tried to get in the way of their relationship but it did not work.

Believe that story if you want. I don't. :shrug:

fgump2

07-27-2009, 10:41 PM

Sample collection 101
Never bring blood samples from a place to a active crime scene. Ask Fung.
It may have been a mistake, but it wouldn't have caused any problems unless someone dropped the tube of blood and spilled it. If this had happened there would have been more missing blood than the defense ever claimed.

fgump2

07-27-2009, 11:15 PM

Martin,

What we forget, Simpson also wanted his freedom. He knew it wasn't working and he knew that Nicole didn't know what she wanted and Nicole knew she didn't know what she wanted.

Both of them wanted out, it wasn't working.

It seems a little odd to write about how Nicole felt about OJS and leave out the fact that she thought he would kill her.

A. Austin, a fairly close friend of Orenthal said that Nicole dumped him and he was upset about this. I think there is other evidence that Nicole dumped him.

it is also true that Nicole's diary has an entry written less than two weeks before the murder in which she wrote that he said over the phone: "You hung up on me, you b**ch, you'll pay for this". It is easy to say that she made that up, but why would she make it up? This entry was made just before the IRS letter was written, which was shortly before the murders.

I think there is adequate evidence that the relationship was stormy during most of the time they knew each other.

GreenIce

07-28-2009, 12:30 AM

Does anyone know exactly where Phillips was when furhman found the glove?

Martin,

No, I don't think I know. I assumed he was on the phone with Simpson when MF found the glove. I always thought that VA and Lange along with Arnelle were all together at that time.

I never really thought about it before.

GreenIce

07-28-2009, 01:09 AM

It seems a little odd to write about how Nicole felt about OJS and leave out the fact that she thought he would kill her.

A. Austin, a fairly close friend of Orenthal said that Nicole dumped him and he was upset about this. I think there is other evidence that Nicole dumped him.

it is also true that Nicole's diary has an entry written less than two weeks before the murder in which she wrote that he said over the phone: "You hung up on me, you b**ch, you'll pay for this". It is easy to say that she made that up, but why would she make it up? This entry was made just before the IRS letter was written, which was shortly before the murders.

I think there is adequate evidence that the relationship was stormy during most of the time they knew each other.

fgump2,

From the books that I have read, that were written in Nicole's "favor", they have all been consistent except for Faye's, that the Simpsons mutally decided it wasn't working and decided to go their separate ways. Is it really so unusal that both of them were not upset and angry that that after 17 years, they still couldn't make a go of it? Is it really suprising that Nicole, at that point in her life was confused on what she really wanted and opted to choose a lifestyle that she felt she missed out on because she was for all intents and purposes married since she was 18?

For some reason, it seems many people believe that break ups and divorces bring out the best in people when, IMO, they can bring out the worst in people. Divorce is not a walk in the park, for many people, regardless how bad a marriage may have been, still feel like a failure when it falls apart. When you add children to it, it makes even worse, again, IMO. I believe in divorce but I hate it with all my being because I have seen the open wounds divorce leaves and will remain open for the rest of that person's or child's life.

It regards to Nicole telling people that Simpson was going to kill her, well we don't know the context of the conversation. However, we do know, these friends had no problem still accepting the benefits of being Simpson's friend. Heck, Kato went and lived in his guest house.

For these friends to come out now and saw all these things, I have to wonder why they waited until after Nicole's death to come forward. I have to wonder why Nicole never told the many therapists she was seeing that she was afraid for her life.

The IRS pissed Nicole off, however, who was Nicole really, really mad at, Simpson for sending the letter or herself for allowing herself to be put in that position?

That IRS letter was the best thing that happened to Nicole, it motivated her to do something about a situation that was going to blow up in her face and she had no one to blame but herself. IMO.