Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

I think the key word here is 'living' -- :eek:

You mean as opposed to not living but whose reputation still rides on an acquittal of 15 years ago?

[weezer]

You mean as opposed to not living but whose reputation still rides on an acquittal of 15 years ago?

that would be what I mean! ;)

[tv]

that would be what I mean! ;)

I think it's telling that he wouldn't get involved with the civil trial. He knew when his lying client got on the stand he was going to have a problem. Instead, Bob Baker got thrown to the wolves. Flee escaped by being in the slammer.

[martin II]

He has no idea. That's why I just try to overlook the things he says about Mr. Bugliosi because he's just spewing out what GreenIce has told him. He really doesn't know any better.

I Have not read vb book but aside from that i know as much as most as for years he has been a talking head on local and national tv as has made himself the center of attraction in important cases. I have also read other legal opinions of his opinions and the consenus is not the same of yours.
The lapd had a record of 98% covictions before VB, during his time as a prosecutor and after.

He just rode that record to his advantage. He was no more skilled that those before.

The manson case could have been won by a dunky you for 40 years he still brags that he won that case.

I post what i think and agree with posters that post informed post.
But you are entitled to your opinion of me but it changes nothing for me.

[martin II]

It shows they'd already made their decision before going into deliberations.

IT shows nothing of the sort. But who knows what you may come up with.
It is my opinion that jurors knew vanhatter was lying when he testified. Obviously most knew the same thing because when in deliberations it became time to discuss him no one had any questions on him.
You still seem to be stuck in place on the issue that you believe the jury was required to go over all the trial evidence before comming to a verdict.

Only the uninformed on what the CJS requires believe that nonsense.:cool:

[martin II]

It was a joke. Sorry that you don't seem to get humor.

Your post to me can go from civil and humor to mean spirited so i try to stick to the point of your post most times.:cool:

[martin II]

It proves that Judge Ito had no reason to think they'd already packed their bags.

He may or may not have known whether they had packed or not.The marshalls controlled the daily activities of the jury not ito.

[martin II]

You mean as opposed to not living but whose reputation still rides on an acquittal of 15 years ago?

VB has been riding the Manson case for 40 years or more and he demands that he be introduced as the man that convicterd Manson 40 years ago.
A crazy man.:cool:

[tv]

I Have not read vb book but aside from that i know as much as most as for years he has been a talking head on local and national tv as has made himself the center of attraction in important cases. I have also read other legal opinions of his opinions and the consenus is not the same of yours.
The lapd had a record of 98% covictions before VB, during his time as a prosecutor and after.

He just rode that record to his advantage. He was no more skilled that those before.

The manson case could have been won by a dunky you for 40 years he still brags that he won that case.

I post what i think and agree with posters that post informed post.
But you are entitled to your opinion of me but it changes nothing for me.

It's hard to take anything you say about Bugliosi seriously when you used to think he was Dominick Dunne writing for Vanity Fair.

[tv]

IT shows nothing of the sort. But who knows what you may come up with.
It is my opinion that jurors knew vanhatter was lying when he testified. Obviously most knew the same thing because when in deliberations it became time to discuss him no one had any questions on him.
You still seem to be stuck in place on the issue that you believe the jury was required to go over all the trial evidence before comming to a verdict.

Only the uninformed on what the CJS requires believe that nonsense.:cool:

They knew they were only going to get deliberated for a short time. You're still stuck on trying to make people believe there was ever a snowball's chance in hell that this jury would convict OJ Simpson even if the crime were video taped.

[tv]

He may or may not have known whether they had packed or not.The marshalls controlled the daily activities of the jury not ito.

Have you ever thought of trying to make money of your mind reading abilities? It's amazing how much you claim to know that no one else knows.

[tv]

who said whats in your last para.

I said that.

[Hipcheck]

please give a link to your claims.

i think you need to read the rules abour posting at the top of the thread.
They apply to you also,

Here is your link so I hope your happy.

www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson7/index.html

[martin II]

He has no idea. That's why I just try to overlook the things he says about Mr. Bugliosi because he's just spewing out what GreenIce has told him. He really doesn't know any better.

Trying to start a new fight i see.

[martin II]

Here is your link so I hope your happy.

www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson7/index.html

This is a link to a media report.

The accurate information is found in Deedricks direct testimony and the defence cross. But i guess you were not aware of that.
But thanks for the try.

[martin II]

I said that.

I should have known.

[martin II]

Have you ever thought of trying to make money of your mind reading abilities? It's amazing how much you claim to know that no one else knows.

If true don't try to blame me.Seems like you may be getting out of control AGAIN with your personal attacks. If my opinions upset you maby you should ignore them this way you will not have to try to speak to another poster through your post to me.:cool:

[martin II]

They knew they were only going to get deliberated for a short time. You're still stuck on trying to make people believe there was ever a snowball's chance in hell that this jury would convict OJ Simpson even if the crime were video taped.

Now you are trying to read the minds of the 12 jurors. :cool:

[martin II]

They knew they were only going to get deliberated for a short time. You're still stuck on trying to make people believe there was ever a snowball's chance in hell that this jury would convict OJ Simpson even if the crime were video taped.

tv

I am truly sorry that the prosecutions failure to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt has caused you so much disconfort.

hopefully this will help.:beer:

[martin II]

It's hard to take anything you say about Bugliosi seriously when you used to think he was Dominick Dunne writing for Vanity Fair.

I don't know if it was VB UNCLE TOM (Or something like that ) comment or his looks that cause you fight so hard for him. But it must be something. :shrug:

Whatever it is it is not important or interesting enough for me to waste time talking about him.:cool:
So i am finished with that.
see ya

[martin II]

I gave the link -- it's in the juror's book Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement? You can also read it in Jeffrey Toobin's book The Run of His Life, The People v. OJ Simpson.

They didn't wait 24 hours to read the verdict. The jury announced they had a verdict at 2:28 PM and the verdict was scheduled to be announced the next day at 10:00 AM.

What it the big differance. is this time worth arguing about. it was the next day.gees
However i have read in media reports that it was 24 hours.

[Hipcheck]

This is a link to a media report.

The accurate information is found in Deedricks direct testimony and the defence cross. But i guess you were not aware of that.
But thanks for the try.

CNN did a recap on Deedrick's testimony and everything they wrote is true and accurate so stop playing dumb with me.

Post any errors in CNN's story. I bet you won't because there are none.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I don't know if it was VB UNCLE TOM (Or something like that ) comment



This looks like another vulgar attempt to call another poster a racist, based on stuff you are making up. She never said anything about that comment :no:

[GreenIce]

This is all a non important issue. it proves nothing.

Martin,

I agree with your post. However, I do take comfort in knowing had the jury convicted Simpson in the same amount of time and we brought up the time, they would be posting just what NG's have posted regarding the length of time of the deliberations.

[socaldiva]

Martin,

I agree with your post. However, I do take comfort in knowing had the jury convicted Simpson in the same amount of time and we brought up the time, they would be posting just what NG's have posted regarding the length of time of the deliberations.

I disagree. There was an overwhelming amount of evidence that showed he was guilty. There was NOT an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that there was reasonable doubt. The jurors clearly had an agenda & it wasn't serving justice. They should be ashamed, but I doubt they have enough character to feel shame.

[GreenIce]

CNN did a recap on Deedrick's testimony and everything they wrote is true and accurate so stop playing dumb with me.

Post any errors in CNN's story. I bet you won't because there are none.

Hipcheck,

Sorry, that CNN link you provided is not accurate.

1) Deedrick testified that rose-beige fibers stuck to a ski cap near the bodies and on a bloody glove behind Simpson's house were similar to the unique carpet fibers in Simpson's white Ford Bronco. He said the rare fibers also were found on a towel, plastic bag and shovel taken from inside Simpson's Bronco.

NOT TRUE, DEEDRICK NEVER TESTIFIED THE FIBERS WERE RARE OR UNIQUE.

2) Deedrick also said he found fibers similar to ones from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress on Ronald Goldman's shirt. Prosecutor Marcia Clark used this conclusion to assert the state's theory that Simpson first attacked his former wife with a glove touching the dress. He then attacked Goldman with the same glove touching Goldman. The dress fibers could have been transferred by the bloody glove, Deedrick said.

SPECULATION ONLY, NO WAY TO PROVE THIS THE STATE'S THEORY AND "COULD" MEANS JUST THAT, "COULD". COULD PROVES NOTHING. NICOLE'S BODY WAS COVERED WITH A BLANKET AND RON GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS DRAGGED THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE. FIBER TRANSFERS "COULD" HAVE BEEN TRANSFERED BECAUSE OF THAT.

3) Goat hairs similar to the cashmere lining of the gloves -- which another witness said were the same size and model as a pair that Nicole Brown Simpson bought in New York -- were found on Goldman's shirt and on the Bundy hat. This testimony was consistent with a glove coming off during the struggle, Deedrick said.

THE RECEIPT DID NOT GIVE THE SIZE OR COLOR OF THE GLOVES AND THE MODEL NUMBER WAS WRONG. THE TAGS THAT HAD THE MODEL NUMBERS WERE REMOVED. THERE WAS NO PROOF HOW THE GLOVES CAME OFF OR EVEN IF THEY WERE WORN DURING THE MURDERS.

The list goes on. I only used caps to highlight my comments. I am not yelling at you or anybody else.

[GreenIce]

I don't understand why anyone would be bent all out of shape about when the jury packed their bags.

But we already have proof that some just love attacking the jury. loosers do that.

Only a couple of people seemed to have made it a lifetime work to attack the jury.

Martin,

IMO, jury bashing is just another excuse to avoid the problems of evidence in this case.

IMO, there was a consistent and persistent problem of evidence in this case. This happened too many times for it to be ignored by a jury. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

Martin,

IMO, jury bashing is just another excuse to avoid the problems of evidence in this case.

IMO, there was a consistent and persistent problem of evidence in this case. This happened too many times for it to be ignored by a jury. Again, IMO.

If this were true, we wouldn't have OJ referred to as a double murderer 14 years later by the vast majority of the population, worldwide. There was no problem with the evidence. It was overwhelming in showing his guilt & that's why people are angry to this day. imo.

[fgump2]

Hipcheck,

How many other SUV carpets had similar carpet fibers that were consistent to the Ford Bronco?

Deedrick testified the hair was consistent coming from an African-American, period. He testified to more than that, see below

The question is when and how did the blood get on the back gate? The drops of blood were too degraded to have an accurate DNA reading. I thought that there was blood of the accused (Simpson) on the rear gate. I may look this up.

You are wrong regarding the footprint in the Bronco.

The pictures were available for the criminal trial, they opted not to use them. Taking them to England to get them validated means nothing. Also, the person sold them first. Everybody knows that pictures can be faked and fool even the best experts.

According to the guidlelines and procedures for polographs, he should have failed it and he did. I have never seen any such guidelines.

You are batting a whomping zero. Try again!

You are batting zero when it comes to Deedrick and hairs.
You have posted repeatidly criticizing Deedrick and also that testing on hair can tell only race. Here are some quotes from Deedrick, and Marcia Clark in bold:Sample are pretty easy to distinguish. You have some problems with identical twins. Identical twins can be real close, especially if they happen to live in the same environment and they share very many common things, because environment, and diet and how much sun they get, how they treat their hair, all of these things add the differences that are often seen between hairs that may be very close microscopically. A person may take--may be an alcoholic. For instance, we had a case once where there were brothers. Their hairs looked very close but one person ha ...You can distinguish between them. Sometimes you will have family members that are pretty close, but for the most part you can distinguish between even siblings or family members again because the characteristics that I look at are not based totally on genetics. ...
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.
MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, I did. That's correct
...
No, no. The--we do not say with absolute certainly that a hair came from a particular person no matter where the hair is found.

I read most of Deedrick's testimony, and I didn't see anything improper about it. The closest thing to a valid criticsim that I could underestand is tha he used the word "match" when some people seem to think that meant "perfect match". He corrected himself once while testifying. I think he said match, and then corrected himself to say 'hairs were similar'.
I feel critical of you because you seem to be so sure that Deedrick's testimony was improper, but you don't seem to understand a lot of what he said.

you are partly correct about the bronco blood stain that may have been a foot print. I don't think it was absolutely identified as a bruno M. footprint, or perhaps even a foot print. In spite of this, I gave more weight to this than most writers did.
First of all, the explanation that Cochran came up with was just wrong. He said that Fuhrman stepped in the bronco with blood on his foot and made the mark. There are two reasons why this doesn't make sense. (1) all the criminologists said that only the killer stepped in the blood. (2) the prosecution showed pictures of the detectives, including Fuhrman, on that night (early morning I suppose) wearing shoes which Bodziak said could not have made the print/stain/mark in the bronco.
I wouldn't want to convict Simpson if this was the only piece of evidence, but it wasn't. I think some NG person on this board, probably WA, wrote that maybe Fuhrman may have deliberately put it there. This seems unlikely. Since the lot wasn't secured, Fuhrman would have been taking a chance on being seen if he painted a foot print in.
The LAPD announced the fooprint was discovered before they discovered the type of shoe that the killer used. Bodziak said there was a possible but not definite match between the bronco mark and the killers shoe. I don't think either Fuhrman or anyone else could have created this possible match without knowing the type of shoe. As far as I know there is no evidence that Fuhrman had any special knowledge in either footprints or artwork (painting) that would be needed to do this work. Also where would Fuhrman have gotten the blood?

I could undersand that the blood might have gotten in before the killings. It might have gotten in innocently if Nicole fell down, and Orenthal accidently stepped in the blood. It could also have gotten there if Orenthal beat up Nicole and stepped in the blood. The defense never came up with these possibilities, so I suppose we should ignore them.

To call Johnnie Cochran and the defense magnificent when they spent 10M and didn't explain all the evidence against Simpson surprises me.

[GreenIce]

You are batting zero when it comes to Deedrick and hairs.
You have posted repeatidly criticizing Deedrick and also that testing on hair can tell only race. Here are some quotes from Deedrick, and Marcia Clark in bold:Sample are pretty easy to distinguish. You have some problems with identical twins. Identical twins can be real close, especially if they happen to live in the same environment and they share very many common things, because environment, and diet and how much sun they get, how they treat their hair, all of these things add the differences that are often seen between hairs that may be very close microscopically. A person may take--may be an alcoholic. For instance, we had a case once where there were brothers. Their hairs looked very close but one person ha ...You can distinguish between them. Sometimes you will have family members that are pretty close, but for the most part you can distinguish between even siblings or family members again because the characteristics that I look at are not based totally on genetics. ...
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.
MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, I did. That's correct
...
No, no. The--we do not say with absolute certainly that a hair came from a particular person no matter where the hair is found.

I read most of Deedrick's testimony, and I didn't see anything improper about it. The closest thing to a valid criticsim that I could underestand is tha he used the word "match" when some people seem to think that meant "perfect match". He corrected himself once while testifying. I think he said match, and then corrected himself to say 'hairs were similar'.
I feel critical of you because you seem to be so sure that Deedrick's testimony was improper, but you don't seem to understand a lot of what he said.

you are partly correct about the bronco blood stain that may have been a foot print. I don't think it was absolutely identified as a bruno M. footprint, or perhaps even a foot print. In spite of this, I gave more weight to this than most writers did.
First of all, the explanation that Cochran came up with was just wrong. He said that Fuhrman stepped in the bronco with blood on his foot and made the mark. There are two reasons why this doesn't make sense. (1) all the criminologists said that only the killer stepped in the blood. (2) the prosecution showed pictures of the detectives, including Fuhrman, on that night (early morning I suppose) wearing shoes which Bodziak said could not have made the print/stain/mark in the bronco.
I wouldn't want to convict Simpson if this was the only piece of evidence, but it wasn't. I think some NG person on this board, probably WA, wrote that maybe Fuhrman may have deliberately put it there. This seems unlikely. Since the lot wasn't secured, Fuhrman would have been taking a chance on being seen if he painted a foot print in.
The LAPD announced the fooprint was discovered before they discovered the type of shoe that the killer used. Bodziak said there was a possible but not definite match between the bronco mark and the killers shoe. I don't think either Fuhrman or anyone else could have created this possible match without knowing the type of shoe. As far as I know there is no evidence that Fuhrman had any special knowledge in either footprints or artwork (painting) that would be needed to do this work. Also where would Fuhrman have gotten the blood?

I could undersand that the blood might have gotten in before the killings. It might have gotten in innocently if Nicole fell down, and Orenthal accidently stepped in the blood. It could also have gotten there if Orenthal beat up Nicole and stepped in the blood. The defense never came up with these possibilities, so I suppose we should ignore them.

To call Johnnie Cochran and the defense magnificent when they spent 10M and didn't explain all the evidence against Simpson surprises me.

fgump2,

You need to read the cross of Deedrick. If hair comparisons were so unique, then you would not need so many samples from different sections. Also, what percentage did Deedrick give that these hairs came from Simpson then from other African-Americans.

The defense never claimed that it was MF who left the footprint in the Bronco. I believe it was a police officer who was at Bundy and it was transfered when the person got into the Bronco to make sure to prepare it for being impounded. I think there is a checklist that must be completed.

Deedrick did do something improper and because of that, I don't trust his testimony. He was not a neutral witness. He was an advocate for the DA's and I disagree with this.

One more thing, there were several other hairs that were found inside the hat. Does OJ Simpson look like the type of person who would have to share his hat? Did the FBI try to determine where those other hairs could have come from, say from Simpson's children?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9211386]As far as I know there is no evidence that Fuhrman had any special knowledge in either footprints or artwork (painting) that would be needed to do this work.

FYI--Mark Fuhrman is an accomplished artist. He was taking art classes while he was waiting on his disability claim. I don't know what field of art he studied but I just wanted to let you know that.

[GreenIce]

To call Johnnie Cochran and the defense magnificent when they spent 10M and didn't explain all the evidence against Simpson surprises me.

fgump2,

The state spent a lot more money then Simpson did. Please remember, no amount of money a defendant had could have purchased the testimony and job performance of the LAPD and the SID. Simpson did not pay MF or VA to lie. The did not pay the state experts not to use the proper equipment to see the blood on the socks. The list goes on but I am sure you get the gist of it.

However, there have been people who have gone on trial who were a lot richer then OJ Simpson and they were convicted. They to were able to afford the best of the best---and they were convicted.

We all can say that we would never committ murder, however, none of us can say that we could never be accused of it. But if we were, wouldn't it be nice to have the resources to be able to challenge the DA's? In other words have a level playing field?

[socaldiva]

*snip*


The state spent a lot more money then Simpson did.

However, there have been people who have gone on trial who were a lot richer then OJ Simpson and they were convicted. They to were able to afford the best of the best---and they were convicted.



I think you are mistaken relative to the state spending more than Simpson.

Who was richer than Simpson, yet was convicted of double murder? Was there more damning evidence against them, or less than Simpson?

If Simpson weren't so guilty, he wouldn't have needed to go out & spend $10 million for the smoke & mirrors show produced by the shady lawyers he hired. Had he not spent $10 million & rushed to court, perhaps the state wouldn't have needed to have spent so much to debunk the nonsense the lawyers brought forth.

[tv]

If true don't try to blame me.Seems like you may be getting out of control AGAIN with your personal attacks. If my opinions upset you maby you should ignore them this way you will not have to try to speak to another poster through your post to me.:cool:

Who am I talking to through you? :confused:

[tv]

Trying to start a new fight i see.

No, just stating fact.

[tv]

Now you are trying to read the minds of the 12 jurors. :cool:

No mindreading required. Their actions speak volumes.

[GreenIce]

I disagree. There was an overwhelming amount of evidence that showed he was guilty. There was NOT an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that there was reasonable doubt. The jurors clearly had an agenda & it wasn't serving justice. They should be ashamed, but I doubt they have enough character to feel shame.

Socaldiva,

In typical G fashion, to disagree with any post an NG writes as well as in your haste to reply, you obviously did not read my post. Your response has made you look foolish, IMO.

I made it clear that has the jury convicted Simpson in the same amount of time that he was aquitted, G's would be making the same arguments to justify their verdict.

You would state the evidence was so overhelming, they did not need to deliberate for any specific amount of time.

In this case it is either or, a jury was going believe the state's cases and put their trust in the LAPD and the SID or they were going to reject the case because they could not trust the LAPD and the SID.

The jury made it clear that had no choice and came back with the only legal verdict they could have. Had the state's case had any credibility, I would not have faulted them on how long they deliberated.

[GreenIce]

I think you are mistaken relative to the state spending more than Simpson.

Who was richer than Simpson, yet was convicted of double murder? Was there more damning evidence against them, or less than Simpson?

If Simpson weren't so guilty, he wouldn't have needed to go out & spend $10 million for the smoke & mirrors show produced by the shady lawyers he hired. Had he not spent $10 million & rushed to court, perhaps the state wouldn't have needed to have spent so much to debunk the nonsense the lawyers brought forth.

Socaldiva,

Your response besides being inaccurate does not even make sense.

[martin II]

Your personal attack isn't funny. I'm still smarting from your obscene cigar remark of a few days ago. I don't accuse you of liking the looks of women that we discuss in this case so please refrain from doing so to me. The Uncle Tom comments belong in the race thread that DW created. Your wimpy way of calling me a racist doesn't earn you any points. Also, while I'm at it, stop trying to pick a fight with me in the grammar thread -- it's not going to work.

tv

you did post that you laughed at the jury member for her grammar remark.

i have stated what i meant by my comment to you and the moderator.

you can turn any comment into something nergative if that is where your mind is.

UNCLE TOM comment belongs in your VB defence.It is in his book.

[martin II]

Socaldiva,

Your response besides being inaccurate does not even make sense.

Cost: estimated $9 million for Los Angeles County, includes costs for court and prosecution; defense figures not available.


Defence spending was close to 4-5 million.

[martin II]

No mindreading required. Their actions speak volumes.

I don't think you know anything that was in the jurors minds but you can pretend you do if you like.:cool:

[martin II]

You are batting zero when it comes to Deedrick and hairs.
You have posted repeatidly criticizing Deedrick and also that testing on hair can tell only race. Here are some quotes from Deedrick, and Marcia Clark in bold:Sample are pretty easy to distinguish. You have some problems with identical twins. Identical twins can be real close, especially if they happen to live in the same environment and they share very many common things, because environment, and diet and how much sun they get, how they treat their hair, all of these things add the differences that are often seen between hairs that may be very close microscopically. A person may take--may be an alcoholic. For instance, we had a case once where there were brothers. Their hairs looked very close but one person ha ...You can distinguish between them. Sometimes you will have family members that are pretty close, but for the most part you can distinguish between even siblings or family members again because the characteristics that I look at are not based totally on genetics. ...
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.
MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, I did. That's correct
...
No, no. The--we do not say with absolute certainly that a hair came from a particular person no matter where the hair is found.

I read most of Deedrick's testimony, and I didn't see anything improper about it. The closest thing to a valid criticsim that I could underestand is tha he used the word "match" when some people seem to think that meant "perfect match". He corrected himself once while testifying. I think he said match, and then corrected himself to say 'hairs were similar'.
I feel critical of you because you seem to be so sure that Deedrick's testimony was improper, but you don't seem to understand a lot of what he said.

you are partly correct about the bronco blood stain that may have been a foot print. I don't think it was absolutely identified as a bruno M. footprint, or perhaps even a foot print. In spite of this, I gave more weight to this than most writers did.
First of all, the explanation that Cochran came up with was just wrong. He said that Fuhrman stepped in the bronco with blood on his foot and made the mark. There are two reasons why this doesn't make sense. (1) all the criminologists said that only the killer stepped in the blood. (2) the prosecution showed pictures of the detectives, including Fuhrman, on that night (early morning I suppose) wearing shoes which Bodziak said could not have made the print/stain/mark in the bronco.
I wouldn't want to convict Simpson if this was the only piece of evidence, but it wasn't. I think some NG person on this board, probably WA, wrote that maybe Fuhrman may have deliberately put it there. This seems unlikely. Since the lot wasn't secured, Fuhrman would have been taking a chance on being seen if he painted a foot print in.
The LAPD announced the fooprint was discovered before they discovered the type of shoe that the killer used. Bodziak said there was a possible but not definite match between the bronco mark and the killers shoe. I don't think either Fuhrman or anyone else could have created this possible match without knowing the type of shoe. As far as I know there is no evidence that Fuhrman had any special knowledge in either footprints or artwork (painting) that would be needed to do this work. Also where would Fuhrman have gotten the blood?

I could undersand that the blood might have gotten in before the killings. It might have gotten in innocently if Nicole fell down, and Orenthal accidently stepped in the blood. It could also have gotten there if Orenthal beat up Nicole and stepped in the blood. The defense never came up with these possibilities, so I suppose we should ignore them.

To call Johnnie Cochran and the defense magnificent when they spent 10M and didn't explain all the evidence against Simpson surprises me.


The defence does not explain evidence the prosecution does.In this case the prosecution had great difficulty in doing so.
why do you think the defence had to prove evidence.Do you understand what is required under CJS rules.

[martin II]

CNN did a recap on Deedrick's testimony and everything they wrote is true and accurate so stop playing dumb with me.

Post any errors in CNN's story. I bet you won't because there are none.

Not true

[martin II]

You are batting zero when it comes to Deedrick and hairs.
You have posted repeatidly criticizing Deedrick and also that testing on hair can tell only race. Here are some quotes from Deedrick, and Marcia Clark in bold:Sample are pretty easy to distinguish. You have some problems with identical twins. Identical twins can be real close, especially if they happen to live in the same environment and they share very many common things, because environment, and diet and how much sun they get, how they treat their hair, all of these things add the differences that are often seen between hairs that may be very close microscopically. A person may take--may be an alcoholic. For instance, we had a case once where there were brothers. Their hairs looked very close but one person ha ...You can distinguish between them. Sometimes you will have family members that are pretty close, but for the most part you can distinguish between even siblings or family members again because the characteristics that I look at are not based totally on genetics. ...
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.
MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with those of the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, I did. That's correct
...
No, no. The--we do not say with absolute certainly that a hair came from a particular person no matter where the hair is found.

I read most of Deedrick's testimony, and I didn't see anything improper about it. The closest thing to a valid criticsim that I could underestand is tha he used the word "match" when some people seem to think that meant "perfect match". He corrected himself once while testifying. I think he said match, and then corrected himself to say 'hairs were similar'.
I feel critical of you because you seem to be so sure that Deedrick's testimony was improper, but you don't seem to understand a lot of what he said.

you are partly correct about the bronco blood stain that may have been a foot print. I don't think it was absolutely identified as a bruno M. footprint, or perhaps even a foot print. In spite of this, I gave more weight to this than most writers did.
First of all, the explanation that Cochran came up with was just wrong. He said that Fuhrman stepped in the bronco with blood on his foot and made the mark. There are two reasons why this doesn't make sense. (1) all the criminologists said that only the killer stepped in the blood. (2) the prosecution showed pictures of the detectives, including Fuhrman, on that night (early morning I suppose) wearing shoes which Bodziak said could not have made the print/stain/mark in the bronco.
I wouldn't want to convict Simpson if this was the only piece of evidence, but it wasn't. I think some NG person on this board, probably WA, wrote that maybe Fuhrman may have deliberately put it there. This seems unlikely. Since the lot wasn't secured, Fuhrman would have been taking a chance on being seen if he painted a foot print in.
The LAPD announced the fooprint was discovered before they discovered the type of shoe that the killer used. Bodziak said there was a possible but not definite match between the bronco mark and the killers shoe. I don't think either Fuhrman or anyone else could have created this possible match without knowing the type of shoe. As far as I know there is no evidence that Fuhrman had any special knowledge in either footprints or artwork (painting) that would be needed to do this work. Also where would Fuhrman have gotten the blood?

I could undersand that the blood might have gotten in before the killings. It might have gotten in innocently if Nicole fell down, and Orenthal accidently stepped in the blood. It could also have gotten there if Orenthal beat up Nicole and stepped in the blood. The defense never came up with these possibilities, so I suppose we should ignore them.

To call Johnnie Cochran and the defense magnificent when they spent 10M and didn't explain all the evidence against Simpson surprises me.


who told you the defence spent $10 MIL

[tv]

tv

you did post that you laughed at the jury member for her grammar remark.

i have stated what i meant by my comment to you and the moderator.

you can turn any comment into something nergative if that is where your mind is.

UNCLE TOM comment belongs in your VB defence.It is in his book.

I have a suggestion about you not liking what I have to say about the juror's bad grammar -- get over it.

[tv]

What it the big differance. is this time worth arguing about. it was the next day.gees
However i have read in media reports that it was 24 hours.

You just made a post recently about relying on media reports. It's simple math. The announced they had a verdict at 2:28 PM and the verdict was read the next morning. That's less than 24 hours.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, jury bashing is just another excuse to avoid the problems of evidence in this case.

IMO, there was a consistent and persistent problem of evidence in this case. This happened too many times for it to be ignored by a jury. Again, IMO.

Whats strange is that most media and lawyers blamed the prosecution for the failure of their case and many gave different reasons. The american public
believes that the jury acted properly in their actions and verdict.

It is just a few that seem to be so distressed at the verdict that they look at the jury and make all kinds of claims from callling the jury ignorant, uneducated to racist. I assume the racist charge is because most of the jury members were black.
What is kinda odd is that the jury pool was overwhelmingly white and ended up being 10 blacks 2 whites 1 hispanics.
The prosecution and defence selected the jury.So if 10 blacks were left what is wrong with that.

The Blake jury voted him not guilty and i have not heard charges of racist.

The jury was forced to serve LA for 9 months and they gave a verdict based on what was presented to them. I agree with others that they gave the correct verdict and all of these personal attacks on them as ignorant is just pure nonsense fueled by runaway anger.:cool:

[martin II]

You just made a post recently about relying on media reports. It's simple math. The announced they had a verdict at 2:28 PM and the verdict was read the next morning. That's less than 24 hours.

So

four five hours means what. nothing. Just like what time they packed their bags mean nothing.

[martin II]

You just made a post recently about relying on media reports. It's simple math. The announced they had a verdict at 2:28 PM and the verdict was read the next morning. That's less than 24 hours.

There is no court record that i have seen to support what you have posted.
just your ideas and it makes no differance even if you had the packing time correct. nit picking and looking under rocks for something that is not there is what i call it.

[tv]

So

four five hours means what. nothing. Just like what time they packed their bags mean nothing.

Whatever, martin. Who cares?

[tv]

There is no court record that i have seen to support what you have posted.
just your ideas and it makes no differance even if you had the packing time correct. nit picking and looking under rocks for something that is not there is what i call it.

Whatever you say. I'm not in the mood for your pettiness today.

[martin II]

This personal attack on another poster was completely undeserved and immature. You keep going on about how the jury had no choice -- that is pure BS. I just finished reading their book and the misconceptions that they had about the facts and testimony in the case is a joke. Who can give them any credibility when it comes to the verdict and the reason for it? Not this G.

Keep on claiming you know what's in our minds and what we would say in response to a different verdict. I'm sure you could run this forum all by yourself -- you could post your opinions on OJ Simpson and the jury being above reproach, the LAPD and the lab being nothing but liars and then you could play the part of the other side. The rest of us could just be spectators. Why not? You already know what we're thinking and what we're going to say at all times. You've claimed more than once that you know we're racists. Hey, GI, let's test your mindreading skills -- how many fingers am I holding up?


Still trying to start the fight back up again. didn't this poster request that you refrain from making post to her in a effort not to allow you to attack her.

[martin II]

Whatever, martin. Who cares?

you are the one that keeps posting on it. gee

[martin II]

This personal attack on another poster was completely undeserved and immature. You keep going on about how the jury had no choice -- that is pure BS. I just finished reading their book and the misconceptions that they had about the facts and testimony in the case is a joke. Who can give them any credibility when it comes to the verdict and the reason for it? Not this G.

Keep on claiming you know what's in our minds and what we would say in response to a different verdict. I'm sure you could run this forum all by yourself -- you could post your opinions on OJ Simpson and the jury being above reproach, the LAPD and the lab being nothing but liars and then you could play the part of the other side. The rest of us could just be spectators. Why not? You already know what we're thinking and what we're going to say at all times. You've claimed more than once that you know we're racists. Hey, GI, let's test your mindreading skills -- how many fingers am I holding up?


the moderator closed the thread last week for this kind of sniping.

[Kate Sachel]

Socaldiva,

In typical G fashion, to disagree with any post an NG writes as well as in your haste to reply, you obviously did not read my post. Your response has made you look foolish, IMO.

I made it clear that has the jury convicted Simpson in the same amount of time that he was aquitted, G's would be making the same arguments to justify their verdict.

You would state the evidence was so overhelming, they did not need to deliberate for any specific amount of time.

In this case it is either or, a jury was going believe the state's cases and put their trust in the LAPD and the SID or they were going to reject the case because they could not trust the LAPD and the SID.

The jury made it clear that had no choice and came back with the only legal verdict they could have. Had the state's case had any credibility, I would not have faulted them on how long they deliberated.

I personally would have faulted them either way. As you may be aware of, I support the jury's verdict despite my personal belief in OJ's guilt.

I think that any jury sitting on a case that lasted for 09 months with such a degree of information coming from both the prosecution and the defense, and with the life of a human being on the line, should have deliberated for far longer than the amount of time in which they did, regardless of the outcome of the verdict.

Kate

[tv]

Still trying to start the fight back up again. didn't this poster request that you refrain from making post to her in a effort not to allow you to attack her.

I'm allowed to give my opinion on any post on this forum just as you've just done.

[Kate Sachel]

the moderator closed the thread last week for this kind of sniping.

Let us recall that the moderator pointed out that the thread was closed due to issues on both sides of this debate. Since the re-opening I can easily point out postings again on both sides that are undoubtedly what the moderator does not want to see.

Kate

[tv]

Still trying to start the fight back up again. didn't this poster request that you refrain from making post to her in a effort not to allow you to attack her.

Please leave me alone -- at least give me a break for a little while.

[Kate Sachel]

Ron Shipp - there has been much discussion regarding his testimony in the trial on this forum in past times.

It has been said that he is a liar, an Uncle Tom, an alcoholic who should be discredited, etc. However, I learned something recently that I had not known before.

After OJ beat Nicole in 1989, she went to Ron Shipp who was a member of law enforcement at that time. I had been under the impression that he had supported Nicole. However, it was Ron Shipp who went to his supervisor and asked that the charges in that matter be dropped.

It's no wonder this man claims to bear a tremendous amount of personal guilt regarding Nicole. Is there anyone, anyone at all, that actually helped her?

Kate

[tv]

Let us recall that the moderator pointed out that the thread was closed due to issues on both sides of this debate. Since the re-opening I can easily point out postings again on both sides that are undoubtedly what the moderator does not want to see.

Kate

Kate, in all honesty it's hard to post in any serious way when other posters try to find clever ways to call you a racist without actually using the word or make sexual remarks using slang that they think you won't understand. I suppose I'm just tired this morning and not in the mood to play games today.

[tv]

Ron Shipp - there has been much discussion regarding his testimony in the trial on this forum in past times.

It has been said that he is a liar, an Uncle Tom, an alcoholic who should be discredited, etc. However, I learned something recently that I had not known before.

After OJ beat Nicole in 1989, she went to Ron Shipp who was a member of law enforcement at that time. I had been under the impression that he had supported Nicole. However, it was Ron Shipp who went to his supervisor and asked that the charges in that matter be dropped.

It's no wonder this man claims to bear a tremendous amount of personal guilt regarding Nicole. Is there anyone, anyone at all, that actually helped her?

Kate

I can't think of anyone who actually helped her. LE was in a position to help her many times but except for the one time that Simpson was charged with domestic abuse they failed her for years. She was even seen in public being abused by him and no one stepped in to help her. Sad.

[Kate Sachel]

I can't think of anyone who actually helped her. LE was in a position to help her many times but except for the one time that Simpson was charged with domestic abuse they failed her for years. She was even seen in public being abused by him and no one stepped in to help her. Sad.

It is sad; this woman had, in the most literal meaning, no where and no one to turn to.

Law enforcement did not even help her in the 1989 beating; the detective assigned to follow up with Nicole actually encouraged her to drop all charges and stated that the only reason he turned the case over the the city attorney was because domestic violence laws required it, and for no other reason.

Kate

[tv]

It is sad; this woman had, in the most literal meaning, no where and no one to turn to.

Law enforcement did not even help her in the 1989 beating; the detective assigned to follow up with Nicole actually encouraged her to drop all charges and stated that the only reason he turned the case over the the city attorney was because domestic violence laws required it, and for no other reason.

Kate

I think that's why she predicted OJ Simpson would kill her. She knew that because his behavior continued unchecked and uncensured that there was help forthcoming to prevent him from killing her.

[Kate Sachel]

I think that's why she predicted OJ Simpson would kill her. She knew that because his behavior continued unchecked and uncensured that there was help forthcoming to prevent him from killing her.

I agree. I am currently in the process of obtaining my Master's Degree in Sociology and it is quite interesting how these things work.

Kate

[tv]

I agree. I am currently in the process of obtaining my Master's Degree in Sociology and it is quite interesting how these things work.

Kate

That's great, Kate! You'll be a great asset to us in that regard. This forum needs all the real experts it can get.

Do you think her predictions were a cry for help? I believe she wanted someone to take her seriously.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You need to read the cross of Deedrick. If hair comparisons were so unique, then you would not need so many samples from different sections. Also, what percentage did Deedrick give that these hairs came from Simpson then from other African-Americans. Deedrick didn't give percentages. When comparisons are made on hairs and fibers, percentages are usually not given. I admit that the testimony would be more meaningful if percentages were given, but to claim as you did that "deedrick said the hairs were African-American -period" as you did distorts the testimony. Getting hairs from different part of the defendents head is part of the process Deedrick did. That makes the testing more reliable. Are you questioning the way the FBI does hair comparisons?

The defense never claimed that it was MF who left the footprint in the Bronco. I believe it was a police officer who was at Bundy and it was transfered when the person got into the Bronco to make sure to prepare it for being impounded. I think there is a checklist that must be completed.

Deedrick did do something improper and because of that, I don't trust his testimony. He was not a neutral witness. He was an advocate for the DA's and I disagree with this. I saw no evidence of this. I think you are quick to accuse. It would be interesting to find out what foreign observers think of the testimony, to find out which is more believable, prosecution witnesses like Deedrick or defense witnesses like Henry Lee, or Gerdes. Are you telling me that Lee and Gerdes weren't advocates for the defenese?
One more thing, there were several other hairs that were found inside the hat. Does OJ Simpson look like the type of person who would have to share his hat? Did the FBI try to determine where those other hairs could have come from, say from Simpson's children?
People sometimes put other people's hats on by accident. I think Deedrick testified that the marjority of the hairs in the hat probably came from Mr. Simpson. That is enough for me. It doesn't matter to me if the other African-American hairs came from say Cowings, Ronn Shipp, Sidney Poitier (sarcasm) or whoever. Maybe Deedrick should have checked to see if some of the hairs came from one of Simpson's children; but that evidence wouldn't change anything for me. The possibility that the hat was left there previously is sometimes brought up. It rains a lot in LA in May, and some even in early June. If the hat had been there long, it would have been matted down by being in the rain. Clothing that has been rained on usually looks different even after it has dried. I don't know if there was any testimony on this. This was an upper class location. That means a lot of garden maintenance and a lot of trash collection. I don't think a hat would have lain there uncollected for very long.

[Kate Sachel]

That's great, Kate! You'll be a great asset to us in that regard. This forum needs all the real experts it can get.

Do you think her predictions were a cry for help? I believe she wanted someone to take her seriously.

I don't think that her predictions were a cry for help; I think she was resigned and simply stating what she believed as fact. I do believe that she made those statements and kept a safety deposit box because she wanted people to know who had victimized her, even though she clearly did not believe that the end result would be that he would be held accountable.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

Very sad; apparently OJ acknowledged that as of that night in 1989, law enforcement had been to the residence eight times. OJ questioned why, after eight times, they were going to take action that night.

It speaks volumes. At least to anyone who cares to listen.

Kate

[tv]

I don't think that her predictions were a cry for help; I think she was resigned and simply stating what she believed as fact. I do believe that she made those statements and kept a safety deposit box because she wanted people to know who had victimized her, even though she clearly did not believe that the end result would be that he would be held accountable.

Kate

I don't either. I do believe she wanted her feelings validated but it seems no one took her seriously. Perhaps, as you say, she was resigned. It fascinates me that she predicted he would get away with it. Gives me goosebumps to think about it.

[Kate Sachel]

Very emotional response by Denise but the prosecution tried to prove that what she thought was true and they could not. So what Denise thought means very little. imo

More than an emotional response. Can you imagine what a person must know in order to have that response?

Hypothetically speaking, as I am an only child, were my sister killed and police phoned my house, I would not automatically begin hollering that my sister's ex-husband had killed her unless I knew of things that gave me firm belief that he would do so.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Denise is entitled to her opinion. Others are entitled to give their opinions on the validity of her comments.The trial proved that she was wrong in her accusation. imo

You claim to be informed about the criminal justice system. If so, explain to this forum please why you would post your last sentence.

If you are knowledgeable, I would assume that you have full understanding that an acquittal in a criminal trial never proves someone innocent, it's sole meaning is that the State did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury called to service.

Hence, your statement that the trial proved that Denise was wrong in her accusation is wholly incorrect.

Kate

[tv]

Very sad; apparently OJ acknowledged that as of that night in 1989, law enforcement had been to the residence eight times. OJ questioned why, after eight times, they were going to take action that night.

It speaks volumes. At least to anyone who cares to listen.

Kate

Apparently, no one cared to listen because it would have meant risking OJ Simpson's disfavor. No one wanted to cause him any inconvenience or discomfort. Even Chris Darden said no one wants to 'do anything to this man' or something along those lines.

[martin II]

People sometimes put other people's hats on by accident. I think Deedrick testified that the marjority of the hairs in the hat probably came from Mr. Simpson. That is enough for me. It doesn't matter to me if the other African-American hairs came from say Cowings, Ronn Shipp, Sidney Poitier (sarcasm) or whoever. Maybe Deedrick should have checked to see if some of the hairs came from one of Simpson's children; but that evidence wouldn't change anything for me. The possibility that the hat was left there previously is sometimes brought up. It rains a lot in LA in May, and some even in early June. If the hat had been there long, it would have been matted down by being in the rain. Clothing that has been rained on usually looks different even after it has dried. I don't know if there was any testimony on this. This was an upper class location. That means a lot of garden maintenance and a lot of trash collection. I don't think a hat would have lain there uncollected for very long.

Since no one saw oj wearing that cap and it was found under some large plants it is not unreasonable that the cap could have been hidden there for some time.
Garbage collectors don't usually clean peoples yards. They collect garbage from the sidewalk. I can understand that the words PROBERLY is enough for some but i believe it is a long way from proof. I don't think that any jury would convict on experts claim of proberly when proof beyond a doubt is required.

[William Anthony]

I believe the word he used to describe Johnnie Cochran's abilities was 'mediocre'.

Thanks for proving my point!

[William Anthony]

I'd say that's an apt description of Cochran as a lawyer. Gotta love VB! I think he was a brilliant lawyer, unlike the snake charmers Simpson called upon.

Let's match his success with the magnificent one's, shall we?

[martin II]

Many people made claims in this case. some based on emotions and others based on what they thought the facts were.

The prosecution claimed that oj was guilty of killing two people and these claims were presented in a court of law to be tried against the facts.
In the end the tryers of facts decided that the prosecution failed to do so.
OJ was found not guilty so all that though he was guilty were wrong if we accept what the CJS requires. Those that want to trash the system and the jury can do so in words but that changes nothing.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

I'm sure there's a Robert Blake forum somewhere for you to discuss his case. This is the OJ Simpson forum.

It is my understanding that you were equallly as outraged over his acquittal. Therefore, I asked you, if you expressed an equal amount of outrage against the lawyers and the jury in Blake's case and, if you have, on which forum so that I can satisfy my interest?

[William Anthony]

It shows they'd already made their decision before going into deliberations.

To me it shows there was nearly unanimous consent that there was reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

Many people made claims in this case. some based on emotions and others based on what they thought the facts were.

The prosecution claimed that oj was guilty of killing two people and these claims were presented in a court of law to be tried against the facts.
In the end the tryers of facts decided that the prosecution failed to do so.
OJ was found not guilty so all that though he was guilty were wrong if we accept what the CJS requires. Those that want to trash the system and the jury can do so in words but that changes nothing.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

I think the key word here is 'living' -- :eek:

May he have a long life, even though I may not agree with some of his statements.

[William Anthony]

They knew they were only going to get deliberated for a short time. You're still stuck on trying to make people believe there was ever a snowball's chance in hell that this jury would convict OJ Simpson even if the crime were video taped.

Agreed, if the prosecution put on the same weak case as they did.

[William Anthony]

I disagree. There was an overwhelming amount of evidence that showed he was guilty. There was NOT an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that there was reasonable doubt. The jurors clearly had an agenda & it wasn't serving justice. They should be ashamed, but I doubt they have enough character to feel shame.

Would this be a character unique to that jury, in your opinion?

[William Anthony]

Socaldiva,

Your response besides being inaccurate does not even make sense.

You should not spend so much money, if you have access to it, to dispute the prosecution's case. GreenIce, do you not understand the American system of jurisprudence, :)?

[martin II]

It is my understanding that you were equallly as outraged over his acquittal. Therefore, I asked you, if you expressed an equal amount of outrage against the lawyers and the jury in Blake's case and, if you have, on which forum so that I can satisfy my interest?

I would love to read such a outraged post myself. if one exist.

[William Anthony]

I have a suggestion about you not liking what I have to say about the juror's bad grammar -- get over it.

The same could be said about your post to me when I had a response to The Boys post but you then saw fit to intervene in the discussion and later made a post that, if I had a problem with The Boys, I should discuss it with him, which is what I was doing before you saw fit to intervene.

[William Anthony]

This personal attack on another poster was completely undeserved and immature. You keep going on about how the jury had no choice -- that is pure BS. I just finished reading their book and the misconceptions that they had about the facts and testimony in the case is a joke. Who can give them any credibility when it comes to the verdict and the reason for it? Not this G.

Keep on claiming you know what's in our minds and what we would say in response to a different verdict. I'm sure you could run this forum all by yourself -- you could post your opinions on OJ Simpson and the jury being above reproach, the LAPD and the lab being nothing but liars and then you could play the part of the other side. The rest of us could just be spectators. Why not? You already know what we're thinking and what we're going to say at all times. You've claimed more than once that you know we're racists. Hey, GI, let's test your mindreading skills -- how many fingers am I holding up?

Would this be an example of a personal attack?

[martin II]

It seems to me that CF was the only friend that gave Nicole sound advice.
All the others that claimed to be her close intimate friends, the Jenners etc
Claimed to know all the details of ojs abuse of nicole during the trial but it seems that none did anything to assist her when all of this abuse was supose to be taking place.Everyone wanted to be in the spotlight talking about what they knew but no one spoke about anything that did.
Either they lied or they were not really her friend as they claimed.

Most people knew Shipp had a secrete desire for nicole.

[tv]

Would this be an example of a personal attack?

This is an example of extreme frustration.

[William Anthony]

Apparently, no one cared to listen because it would have meant risking OJ Simpson's disfavor. No one wanted to cause him any inconvenience or discomfort. Even Chris Darden said no one wants to 'do anything to this man' or something along those lines.

Does that mean that Darden didn't have faith in his ability to prove the charges brought by the state?

[Kate Sachel]

It seems to me that CF was the only friend that gave Nicole sound advice.
All the others that claimed to be her close intimate friends, the Jenners etc
Claimed to know all the details of ojs abuse of nicole during the trial but it seems that none did anything to assist her when all of this abuse was supose to be taking place.Everyone wanted to be in the spotlight talking about what they knew but no one spoke about anything that did.
Either they lied or they were not really her friend as they claimed.

Most people knew Shipp had a secrete desire for nicole.

What advisement did Cora give to Nicole? And, advisement is far different than intervention.

Regardless, you are right in that they did not do anything to attempt to help Nicole as far as they know. I would not be so quick as to assume that none of them were real friends, but I do believe they let her down.

Kate

[tv]

The same could be said about your post to me when I had a response to The Boys post but you then saw fit to intervene in the discussion and later made a post that, if I had a problem with The Boys, I should discuss it with him, which is what I was doing before you saw fit to intervene.

Whatever you say, William. I'm not getting into the middle of anything between you and The Boys.

[tv]

It is my understanding that you were equallly as outraged over his acquittal. Therefore, I asked you, if you expressed an equal amount of outrage against the lawyers and the jury in Blake's case and, if you have, on which forum so that I can satisfy my interest?

This is the OJ Simpson forum. If you want to discuss Robert Blake I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the internet where you can do that.

[martin II]

Would this be an example of a personal attack?

I see it as a personal attack,of how one can get out of control and how one may seek to creat fights with posters that have basically ignored their post.

[tv]

Does that mean that Darden didn't have faith in his ability to prove the charges brought by the state?

You'd have to ask Darden what he meant.

[William Anthony]

Whatever you say, William. I'm not getting into the middle of anything between you and The Boys.

There is nothing for you to get in the middle of. I expressed my view. The Boys ignored it and responded to Martin, calling Simpson "your boy". I then followed the moderator's instructions. Thank you.

[martin II]

This is the OJ Simpson forum. If you want to discuss Robert Blake I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the internet where you can do that.

Does this mean that you will stop forcing VB on everyone here?

[William Anthony]

This is the OJ Simpson forum. If you want to discuss Robert Blake I'm sure there are plenty of forums on the internet where you can do that.

It deals with a perceived lack of outrage at the defense teams and the juries in two murder cases involving celebrities and why the perceived disparity.

[Kate Sachel]

OJ was found not guilty so all that though he was guilty were wrong if we accept what the CJS requires. Those that want to trash the system and the jury can do so in words but that changes nothing.imo:cool:

An incorrect statement and I'm certain that someone can explain to you why it is incorrect of you are not aware already.

Kate

[tv]

I see it as a personal attack,of how one can get out of control and how one may seek to creat fights with posters that have basically ignored their post.

If you have an issue with my post then contact DW and she'll delete it. If not, please stop harrassing me about it.

[William Anthony]

You'd have to ask Darden what he meant.

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Apparently, no one cared to listen because it would have meant risking OJ Simpson's disfavor. No one wanted to cause him any inconvenience or discomfort. Even Chris Darden said no one wants to 'do anything to this man' or something along those lines.

Did you ask Darden what he meant before you assigned an assertion to his statement?

[tv]

It deals with a perceived lack of outrage at the defense teams and the juries in two murder cases involving celebrities and why the perceived disparity.

William, I don't know what you're rattling on about. I know very little about the Robert Blake case. I didn't really follow it and only know what I've read about why there wasn't as much interest in it from the public.

[tv]

Did you ask Darden what he meant before you assigned an assertion to his statement?

I've never spoken to Chris Darden.

[martin II]

It is my understanding that you were equallly as outraged over his acquittal. Therefore, I asked you, if you expressed an equal amount of outrage against the lawyers and the jury in Blake's case and, if you have, on which forum so that I can satisfy my interest?

There was a list of cases that this poster said she dissagreed strongly with but no attack on those juries that i read in her post.:shrug:

[tv]

Does this mean that you will stop forcing VB on everyone here?

I stopped talking about him many posts ago but I've never forced him on you or anyone else. Let it go, martin.

[William Anthony]

I've never spoken to Chris Darden.

Thanks for this truthful response, as it is your designation as to what you thought a possible statement may have meant, as with the statement, "We take care of one of our own."

[William Anthony]

William, I don't know what you're rattling on about. I know very little about the Robert Blake case. I didn't really follow it and only know what I've read about why there wasn't as much interest in it from the public.

Ah, but you followed the Simpson case and have readily expressed your outrage.

[William Anthony]

An incorrect statement and I'm certain that someone can explain to you why it is incorrect of you are not aware already.

Kate

I ask with what you disagree in the statement, if the poster is speaking from a legal standpoint.

[martin II]

OJ was found not guilty by a legal jury of all the crimes the prosecution charged him with. Others ignored the verdict and others made claims that meant absolutely nothing as he was only charged with what the prosecution
put forth in their charge.
Even the prosecution did not charge him with abuse.

[tv]

Thanks for this truthful response, as it is your designation as to what you thought a possible statement may have meant, as with the statement, "We take care of one of our own."

I know what Chris Darden said. It was clear. Not everyone talks in circles like you do. If you want to discuss "we had to take care of our own" it should be discussed in the race thread.

[Kate Sachel]

martin, if your point is that you don't think I have a right to post on this forum or that you should dictate what message boards I visit then just say so. It won't make any difference but you may as well put your cards on the table.

By the way, there's a difference between criticism and attack. Maybe you should look those two words up in the dictionary.

Don't fall for it; the baiting is heavy right now and it's a game that is going to lock this forum down once again. Let those who choose to play deal with the consequences.

Kate

[tv]

Ah, but you followed the Simpson case and have readily expressed your outrage.

I'm entitled to be outraged at whatever I choose.

[fgump2]

Very sad; apparently OJ acknowledged that as of that night in 1989, law enforcement had been to the residence eight times. OJ questioned why, after eight times, they were going to take action that night.

It speaks volumes. At least to anyone who cares to listen.

Kate
the above quote came in response to:Originally Posted by fbgweezer
"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

Some people (advocates of not guilty) have said that the police may have made up or at least exagerated parts of the 1989 report. I doubt this for several reasons. First of all the description of Orenthal's anger resembles the descriptions of his anger by both people and LA, and from at least one in Florida. Secondly the report makes the LAPD look bad for not doing anything about the DV. I don't think a cop would make things up that make their own dept look bad. Thirdly the cop reported that the maid attacked Nicole as she sat in the cop car; and yet the cop didn't arrest the maid (not mentioned anyway). I think Martin or someone wrote that "if this were true then the police
would have had to arrest the maid". This is another example of the police writing up an incident that makes them look bad. It makes them look bad for probably not arresting the maid, and for not controlling the situation. The report makes it seem like the maid got in a fair amount of punches before she was pulled away. I think police sometimes make up or distort things, but not when it makes themselves look bad. As for "having to arrest" the maid. People often fail to do things that they "had" to do.

[martin II]

I know what Chris Darden said. It was clear. Not everyone talks in circles like you do. If you want to discuss "we had to take care of our own" it should be discussed in the race thread.

Why should WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN be discussed on a race thread?

[William Anthony]

I know what Chris Darden said. It was clear. Not everyone talks in circles like you do. If you want to discuss "we had to take care of our own" it should be discussed in the race thread.

I don't know what makes you think what Darden said is clear, since you admit never having spoken to him, as you suggested to me that, if I wanted to know what he meant, I should ask him. Do you not follow your own advice?

[tv]

Don't fall for it; the baiting is heavy right now and it's a game that is going to lock this forum down once again. Let those who choose to play deal with the consequences.

Kate

You're right. It's time for me to step back from the bullying.

[tv]

I don't know what makes you think what Darden said is clear, since you admit never having spoken to him, as you suggested to me that, if I wanted to know what he meant, I should ask him. Do you not follow your own advice? :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I'm entitled to be outraged at whatever I choose.

Ah, then are you now recanting your prior post or are you admitting that you were not as outraged over Blake's verdicts as you were about Simpson's?

[tv]

Why should WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN be discussed on a race thread?

:seeya:

[tv]

Ah, then are you now recanting your prior post or are you admitting that you were not as outraged over Blake's verdicts as you were about Simpson's?

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

I know what Chris Darden said. It was clear. Not everyone talks in circles like you do. If you want to discuss "we had to take care of our own" it should be discussed in the race thread.

I see nothing racial about the statement.

[Kate Sachel]

the above quote came in response to:Originally Posted by fbgweezer
"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

Some people (advocates of not guilty) have said that the police may have made up or at least exagerated parts of the 1989 report. I doubt this for several reasons. First of all the description of Orenthal's anger resembles the descriptions of his anger by both people and LA, and from at least one in Florida. Secondly the report makes the LAPD look bad for not doing anything about the DV. I don't think a cop would make things up that make their own dept look bad. Thirdly the cop reported that the maid attacked Nicole as she sat in the cop car; and yet the cop didn't arrest the maid (not mentioned anyway). I think Martin or someone wrote that "if this were true then the police
would have had to arrest the maid". This is another example of the police writing up an incident that makes them look bad. It makes them look bad for probably not arresting the maid, and for not controlling the situation. The report makes it seem like the maid got in a fair amount of punches before she was pulled away. I think police sometimes make up or distort things, but not when it makes themselves look bad. As for "having to arrest" the maid. People often fail to do things that they "had" to do.

I'm not certain what report you are referring to; what I have read regarding the beating of that night in 1989 was not that the maid was punching or attacking Nicole, but that she was reaching into the car and pulling on Nicole, telling her to just come back inside the house.

I think that, in general, the criminal justice system fails victims of domestic violence. I have toured shelters, spoken with law enforcement, and spoken with men who abuse their partners. The stories would astound any reasonable individual. The common sentiment amongst the abusers was that they rarely faced consequences in the system; slaps on the wrist with perhaps 72 hours of community service, or the requirement to complete a "program".

Kate

[tv]

I see nothing racial about the statement.

Okay.

[tv]

There is nothing for you to get in the middle of. I expressed my view. The Boys ignored it and responded to Martin, calling Simpson "your boy". I then followed the moderator's instructions. Thank you.

I'm not interested in your squabbles.

[martin II]

martin, if your point is that you don't think I have a right to post on this forum or that you should dictate what message boards I visit then just say so. It won't make any difference but you may as well put your cards on the table.

By the way, there's a difference between criticism and attack. Maybe you should look those two words up in the dictionary.

You have as much right to post your opinions as me or anyone else.
You have expressed your outrage at the oj jury verdict. A poster asked if you expressed the same outrage over the Blake verdict.
I noted that you gave a list of cases that you were outraged at the verdict and asked if you had expressed the same outrage against those juries as you did against the oj jury.

I have not said you don't have a right to post here.I have not even suggested that.

[tv]

You have as much right to post your opinions as me or anyone else.
You have expressed your outrage at the oj jury verdict. A poster asked if you expressed the same outrage over the Blake verdict.
I noted that you gave a list of cases that you were outraged at the verdict and asked if you had expressed the same outrage against those juries as you did against the oj jury.

I have not said you don't have a right to post here.I have not even suggested that.

I don't wish to discuss those other cases.

[William Anthony]

I'm not interested in your squabbles.

Why are you trying to make something out of nothing? I told you that I ignored tThe Boys baiting remark in a response to Martin's post.

[tv]

Why are you trying to make something out of nothing? I told you that I ignored tThe Boys baiting remark in a response to Martin's post.

You made a post to me about it but it's none of my concern. Let it go.

[martin II]

the above quote came in response to:Originally Posted by fbgweezer
"He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me," she cried, according to the report. "You never do anything about him. You talk to him and then leave." Her eye was black. Her lip was split. His handprint was still on her neck.

Some people (advocates of not guilty) have said that the police may have made up or at least exagerated parts of the 1989 report. I doubt this for several reasons. First of all the description of Orenthal's anger resembles the descriptions of his anger by both people and LA, and from at least one in Florida. Secondly the report makes the LAPD look bad for not doing anything about the DV. I don't think a cop would make things up that make their own dept look bad. Thirdly the cop reported that the maid attacked Nicole as she sat in the cop car; and yet the cop didn't arrest the maid (not mentioned anyway). I think Martin or someone wrote that "if this were true then the police
would have had to arrest the maid". This is another example of the police writing up an incident that makes them look bad. It makes them look bad for probably not arresting the maid, and for not controlling the situation. The report makes it seem like the maid got in a fair amount of punches before she was pulled away. I think police sometimes make up or distort things, but not when it makes themselves look bad. As for "having to arrest" the maid. People often fail to do things that they "had" to do.


fgump2

I have not posted anything about any action betweem nicole and the maid at any police car. Saying that i did is not true.

I have read that at one time when nicole had attacked the maid she nicole and oj ended up at the gate wioth the police there. i believe this was a time that nicole had attacked the maid and oj tried to break up the fight and nicole ran out of the house in her undies. i think.
testimony was that the maid was trying to calm nicole down by tellking her to coime back into the house. i never any police report of this incident.if you have a link to it please post it.
the other incident was cwhen nicole walked into the kitchan and without cause slapoped the maids face. The maid cried and told oj she was quiting the job.
cops lie all the time depending on who they want to help in their reports.You should be happy that it has never happened to you.

[fgump2]

Since no one saw oj wearing that cap and it was found under some large plants it is not unreasonable that the cap could have been hidden there for some time.
Garbage collectors don't usually clean peoples yards. They collect garbage from the sidewalk. I can understand that the words PROBERLY is enough for some but i believe it is a long way from proof. I don't think that any jury would convict on experts claim of proberly when proof beyond a doubt is required.
I think you should get an award for either chutzpa or having more gall than France for criticizing another person's spelling.

You and William both should get a similar award for posting complaints about people posting a lot about the Simpson case, and little or none about he Blake case. How many postings have you and William done on the Simpson case, and how many on the Blake case?

People don't have to explain why they post on one subject and not another. Another person might post a lot on racial profiling, and nothing on Iraq or
global warming. Different people have different interests. People become emotional on this thread not just because of their thoughts on the subject, but in response to what they read on this thread, and what has been on the news media about the case.

[martin II]

I don't wish to discuss those other cases.

Great

[fgump2]

fgump2

I have not posted anything about any action betweem nicole and the maid at any police car. Saying that i did is not true.

I have read that at one time when nicole had attacked the maid she nicole and oj ended up at the gate wioth the police there. i believe this was a time that nicole had attacked the maid and oj tried to break up the fight and nicole ran out of the house in her undies. i think.
testimony was that the maid was trying to calm nicole down by tellking her to coime back into the house. i never any police report of this incident.if you have a link to it please post it.
the other incident was cwhen nicole walked into the kitchan and without cause slapoped the maids face. The maid cried and told oj she was quiting the job.
cops lie all the time depending on who they want to help in their reports.You should be happy that it has never happened to you.

I may not remember correctly about what you posted. I will try to make it up perhaps by looking up your past posts and finding something to insult you about (just kidding).

Actually I have had cops lie to me twice, although orally, not in a written report.

Ordinarily they don't put things down on paper that make either themselves or their dept look bad. In a written report they usually are likely to spend some time thinking:"exactly who am I trying to make look bad here; I gotta make sure I don't make myself look bad".

[William Anthony]

You made a post to me about it but it's none of my concern. Let it go.

Let's set the record straight. The Boys used the word boy in a post about Simpson and I responded to that post with a reminder about the prior use of the word in regard to an adult Black male, to which you responded telling me about a new thread started for race. I then asked you had you informed The Boys of the thread. The Boys continued to use the word boy in regard to Simpson and I followed the moderator's advice. You said there was a squabble but there is not. Thank you.

[tv]

I think you should get an award for either chutzpa or having more gall than France for criticizing another person's spelling.

You and William both should get a similar award for posting complaints about people posting a lot about the Simpson case, and little or none about he Blake case. How many postings have you and William done on the Simpson case, and how many on the Blake case?

People don't have to explain why they post on one subject and not another. Another person might post a lot on racial profiling, and nothing on Iraq or
global warming. Different people have different interests. People become emotional on this thread not just because of their thoughts on the subject, but in response to what they read on this thread, and what has been on the news media about the case.

Thank you. I totally agree about the emotions on the thread and the reasons for them. Everyone is different and has different interests. That's what makes the world go around. :)

[tv]

Let's set the record straight. The Boys used the word boy in a post about Simpson and I responded to that post with a reminder about the prior use of the word in regard to an adult Black male, to which you responded telling me about a new thread started for race. I then asked you had you informed The Boys of the thread. The Boys continued to use the word boy in regard to Simpson and I followed the moderator's advice. You said there was a squabble but there is not. Thank you.

Please let it go.

[fgump2]

I'm not certain what report you are referring to; what I have read regarding the beating of that night in 1989 was not that the maid was punching or attacking Nicole, but that she was reaching into the car and pulling on Nicole, telling her to just come back inside the house.
You may be right. Most people on this thread criticize others for not reasearching before posting, but we are amateurs, so we rely on memory and often make mistakes.I think that, in general, the criminal justice system fails victims of domestic violence. I have toured shelters, spoken with law enforcement, and spoken with men who abuse their partners. The stories would astound any reasonable individual. The common sentiment amongst the abusers was that they rarely faced consequences in the system; slaps on the wrist with perhaps 72 hours of community service, or the requirement to complete a "program".
Kate
I think the 1989 report makes Simpson look like a potential killer.

[William Anthony]

I think you should get an award for either chutzpa or having more gall than France for criticizing another person's spelling.

You and William both should get a similar award for posting complaints about people posting a lot about the Simpson case, and little or none about he Blake case. How many postings have you and William done on the Simpson case, and how many on the Blake case?

People don't have to explain why they post on one subject and not another. Another person might post a lot on racial profiling, and nothing on Iraq or
global warming. Different people have different interests. People become emotional on this thread not just because of their thoughts on the subject, but in response to what they read on this thread, and what has been on the news media about the case.

I would like to thank you for allowing me to have the chance to expound upon the situation, since I have never expressed outrage over the defense or the jury in either of the cases-Simpson's three and Blake's acquittal. However, had I seen the nasty remarks made about that jury and the lawyers, I would have posted my response. Thank you.

[martin II]

I think you should get an award for either chutzpa or having more gall than France for criticizing another person's spelling.

You and William both should get a similar award for posting complaints about people posting a lot about the Simpson case, and little or none about he Blake case. How many postings have you and William done on the Simpson case, and how many on the Blake case?

People don't have to explain why they post on one subject and not another. Another person might post a lot on racial profiling, and nothing on Iraq or
global warming. Different people have different interests. People become emotional on this thread not just because of their thoughts on the subject, but in response to what they read on this thread, and what has been on the news media about the case.


you can always ignore my post if for any reason they bother you.

I only heard the beginning reports about the blake case but from that i thought he was guilty of shooting that woman in the mouth. I think that is what happened.It was only yesterday that i was told that he was found not guilty.

You are claiming something is wrong because i have not posted on the Blake case yet another poster is claiming this is not the thread to talk about Blake.

I have not posted on The Blake case because i did not follow it and know very little about the evidence or the outcome.

I watched the oj case every day and recorded almost all the testimony.I have read most all of the testimony so i do post on that case because it is interesting to me.


I have not critized anyone for spelling on this thread so it may be a good idea
for you to check the accuracy of your claims before making them.

In your previous post you make the claim that i said something about the maid and nicole in the police car. That also was absolutely wrong.
If there is anything else that i can correct you on please let me know.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Please let it go.

I have set the record straight.

[tv]

I have set the record straight.

:seeya:

[martin II]

I think the 1989 report makes Simpson look like a potential killer.

I think it makes him look like a guy that hit his wife and was sorry for his actions.

[Kate Sachel]

I think it makes him look like a guy that hit his wife and was sorry for his actions.

But martin, OJ claims that he never hit Nicole that night. Under oath, he stated that he never hit, slapped, kicked, or punched her.

At least you agree that it makes him look like a guy that hit his wife.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think the 1989 report makes Simpson look like a potential killer.

I hope you didn't take my post to mean that I was criticizing you if your recollection of the report was not accurate and sincerely apologize if that is how it came across.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

In your previous post you make the claim that i said something about the maid and nicole in the police car. That also was absolutely wrong.
If there is anything else that i can correct you on please let me know.:cool:

Actually martin, her/his post said "I think Martin or someone wrote ..."

She/he was hardly saying definitively that you made any such claim.

Kate

[weezer]

SNIPPED* * *". . .I only heard the beginning reports about the blake case but from that i thought he was guilty of shooting that woman in the mouth.

WOW -- a rush to judgment martin? you "only heard the beginning reports" but thought he was guilty?

[martin II]

i feel the need to clear up something

The first report i heard in the media was that Blake had shot that woman in the mouth with his gun.There was a drawing that came with the media report.
I thought that if that was true he did it. Obviously the trial brought forth more info and a jury said he was not guilty. i have no problem with the verdict as i did not follow the trial and know very little about the case.

When the media first reported that oj had killed his wife and i saw him in the Bronco ride i thought he may be guilty. during the trial with the evidence and testimony it became clear that he had not commited the crime.The tryers of fact confirmed to me that he was not guilty of killing anyone.

[Hipcheck]

i feel the need to clear up something

The first report i heard in the media was that Blake had shot that woman in the mouth with his gun.There was a drawing that came with the media report.
I thought that if that was true he did it. Obviously the trial brought forth more info and a jury said he was not guilty. i have no problem with the verdict as i did not follow the trial and know very little about the case.
.

Martin

Why don't you post a link where Bonnie Lee Blakely was shot in the mouth becuase I have never heard that. I heard Blakely died from being shot in the head.

Phil Spector is the one who shot Lana Clarkston in the mouth.

[weezer]

i feel the need to clear up something

The first report i heard in the media was that Blake had shot that woman in the mouth with his gun.There was a drawing that came with the media report.
I thought that if that was true he did it. Obviously the trial brought forth more info and a jury said he was not guilty. i have no problem with the verdict as i did not follow the trial and know very little about the case.

When the media first reported that oj had killed his wife and i saw him in the Bronco ride i thought he may be guilty. during the trial with the evidence and testimony it became clear that he had not commited the crime.The tryers of fact confirmed to me that he was not guilty of killing anyone.

LOL

Blake: ". . .The first report i heard . . ." = ". . .I thought that if that was true he did it. . ."

orenthal: ". . .media first reported that oj had killed his wife. . ." = ". . .i thought he may be guilty. . ."

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I only heard the beginning reports about the blake case but from that i thought he was guilty of shooting that woman in the mouth.

I think you've confused the Robert Blake case with the Phil Spector case. Bonny Lee Bakley (Blake) was shot in the head, whereas Lana Clarkson was shot in the mouth.

[martin II]

I have set the record straight.

Thanks for that William.

[socaldiva]

LOL

Blake: ". . .The first report i heard . . ." = ". . .I thought that if that was true he did it. . ."

orenthal: ". . .media first reported that oj had killed his wife. . ." = ". . .i thought he may be guilty. . ."

Ahahaha even double murderers can see each other for what they are. I love it!

[martin II]

Martin

Why don't you post a link where Bonnie Lee Blakely was shot in the mouth becuase I have never heard that. I heard Blakely died from being shot in the head.

Phil Spector is the one who shot Lana Clarkston in the mouth.

Reading your post you are correct and i mistated Blakes charge. Shows how much i knew about either case.

Blake was accused of shooting his wife in his car down the street from a resturant near a dumster.

Phil was accused of shooting a woman in the mouth in the foyer of his home after meeting her in a club or party.

Is Phils trial over and if so what was the verdict.

Thanks

[socaldiva]

*snip*Is Phils trial over and if so what was the verdict.




Yep, GUILTY :D

[martin II]

most of the oj books written by various people are now selling for .01 cent.
This includes Furhman.

[socaldiva]

most of the oj books written by various people are now selling for .01 cent.
This includes Furhman.

That seems to be an exaggeration, but IIRC the book the jurors almost immediately went to the 99 cent store. You seem to be talking about present day sales.

I know you hate it, but Furhman seems to be an accomplished writer. He's written several books that seemed to do well.

[GreenIce]

People sometimes put other people's hats on by accident. I think Deedrick testified that the marjority of the hairs in the hat probably came from Mr. Simpson. That is enough for me. It doesn't matter to me if the other African-American hairs came from say Cowings, Ronn Shipp, Sidney Poitier (sarcasm) or whoever. Maybe Deedrick should have checked to see if some of the hairs came from one of Simpson's children; but that evidence wouldn't change anything for me. The possibility that the hat was left there previously is sometimes brought up. It rains a lot in LA in May, and some even in early June. If the hat had been there long, it would have been matted down by being in the rain. Clothing that has been rained on usually looks different even after it has dried. I don't know if there was any testimony on this. This was an upper class location. That means a lot of garden maintenance and a lot of trash collection. I don't think a hat would have lain there uncollected for very long.

fgump2,

Why was Deedrick forbidden to use his one report that the media led us to believe would be so damning? He used independant sources and therefore he did not feel the need to turn over his report to the defense. Why is an FBI agent looking for ways around discovery laws and using independant sources if he is suppose to be a neutral witness.

Dr. Gerdes and Dr. Lee were not advocates for the defense. Both men pointed out problem of evidence. Dr. Gerdes had evaluated the LAPD lab long before the Simpson trial, not much, if anything changed since his last evaluation on it.

That is all you needed say. Even if one hair was close to Simpson's, that would be enough for you. I disagree with you on this but you have taken a stand and I respect that.

[GreenIce]

I am still looking for examples of Simpson being coddled and cuddled by the LAPD. Since none of these police officers came forward, then these alleged events did not take place. The reason they did not happen is because if they did, these police officers would have come forward and testified about them.

Ron Shipp, IMO is a liar because he did not run plates for Simpson, he ran them for Nicole. He knew she was out of control and even being out of control, she still did not see him as a romantic interest. He ran errands for her and many times used his shield to do favors for Nicole. Read Sheila Weller's book.

Where is the proof that Ron Shipp went to his boss and asked to drop the charges? Where is the proof that Ron Shipp, if he did do this, he did not do it of his own accord because he did not want to lose the Juice as a friend?

IMO, if Shipp and these other alleged or so called friends really knew what they have claimed to know and they did nothing, then all of them should spend the rest of their lives swimming in Nicole's and Ron's blood for the rest of their lives in their sleep. Again, IMO. They all should be zombies because of the guilt they feel. IMO, I don't see any of them of losing sleep over their role in Nicole's death as well as Ron's. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think it makes him look like a guy that hit his wife and was sorry for his actions.

Martin,

IMO, Simpson took full responsibility for the 1989 incident. He could have blamed alcohol on it, he didn't. If Simpson was a wife beater he never would have had his lawyer draw up that clause regarding the pre-nup. He never would have been able to let that piece of paper control his hands. IMO, a wife beater can't stop--unless they themselves go through the "military rehabilition course" for wife and child beaters. Any one who has been in the military knows about this course. Very similar to the one in prisons that child molesters and rapists go through.

What very frustrating about this is that none of the court transcripts or the statement Nicole gave to police has ever been released. I know the judge who had the case was so angry at Garcetti blaming him that he sent the transcripts and the statements to the news agency who was interviewing him.

There was nothing in this incident, according to court appointed personnel that Nicole was in any danger from Simpson or that she feared for her life. She was seeing enough therapists and they would have had to have reported this if it was the case.

And fgump2, if you bring up Dr. Forward, just remember, she did not follow the law either, if what she is saying is true. We have no proof she is telling the truth because she freely admits she didn't do her job. She didn't report it!

[martin II]

I am still looking for examples of Simpson being coddled and cuddled by the LAPD. Since none of these police officers came forward, then these alleged events did not take place. The reason they did not happen is because if they did, these police officers would have come forward and testified about them.

Ron Shipp, IMO is a liar because he did not run plates for Simpson, he ran them for Nicole. He knew she was out of control and even being out of control, she still did not see him as a romantic interest. He ran errands for her and many times used his shield to do favors for Nicole. Read Sheila Weller's book.

Where is the proof that Ron Shipp went to his boss and asked to drop the charges? Where is the proof that Ron Shipp, if he did do this, he did not do it of his own accord because he did not want to lose the Juice as a friend?

IMO, if Shipp and these other alleged or so called friends really knew what they have claimed to know and they did nothing, then all of them should spend the rest of their lives swimming in Nicole's and Ron's blood for the rest of their lives in their sleep. Again, IMO. They all should be zombies because of the guilt they feel. IMO, I don't see any of them of losing sleep over their role in Nicole's death as well as Ron's. Again, IMO.

Mr Dear did a long interview of Shipp at his home but i don't remember any conversation about Shipp getting some charges dropped. I will scan the book again.

[GreenIce]

Mr Dear did a long interview of Shipp at his home but i don't remember any conversation about Shipp getting some charges dropped. I will scan the book again.

Martin,

I know there is a book out there who's theory is that Ron Shipp is the killer or knows much more about the murders then he is telling. In one the books written and published like two weeks after the murders has Ron Shipp calling Tom McCallum at 3:00 a.m. telling him about Nicole's murder. However, there has never been any proof of this.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Why was Deedrick forbidden to use his one report that the media led us to believe would be so damning? He used independant sources and therefore he did not feel the need to turn over his report to the defense. Why is an FBI agent looking for ways around discovery laws and using independant sources if he is suppose to be a neutral witness.

Dr. Gerdes and Dr. Lee were not advocates for the defense. Both men pointed out problem of evidence. Dr. Gerdes had evaluated the LAPD lab long before the Simpson trial, not much, if anything changed since his last evaluation on it.

That is all you needed say. Even if one hair was close to Simpson's, that would be enough for you. I disagree with you on this but you have taken a stand and I respect that.


I posted the side bar conversation where Cochran complained about Deedrick
witholding info from his report about the hairs/fibers. Deedrick dissobeyed ITO demand to give the defence this info.Deedrick played a lot of games by mislabeling photos and not giving all the info to the defence.
Ito then did not allow Clarke to use any of Deedricks report information on hairs fibers.
This info had been leaked to media like CNN but was not part of testimony or record of the court imo

i suggest that hipckeck read the posted side bar argument and the judges decision.

[martin II]

From testimony i have read i think that some friends were concerned about nicoles life style and her decision to try to get back with oj during that one year make up period. But it was also known that Nicole was a strong willed person that drove her own car.CF advised her against the constant partying with faye and all the men and against all the drinking. She also advised her that she and oj should consider moving to Florida for a change or new start away from the problem and people in Brentwood.Nicole had said she had no problem with this and told oj she would move anyplace.
But the partying continued and they never moved.I have never read that nicoles family or her friends advised her to leave oj prior to her death.
Her friends did sell various interviews to media for money with various claims
of abuse but there is no testimony that anyone actually acted on what they claimed they knew or that these stories were actually true as told.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I know there is a book out there who's theory is that Ron Shipp is the killer or knows much more about the murders then he is telling. In one the books written and published like two weeks after the murders has Ron Shipp calling Tom McCallum at 3:00 a.m. telling him about Nicole's murder. However, there has never been any proof of this.

Testimony and Dears interview proved one thing and that is that Shipp was a drunk.

[martin II]

From memory oj took full responsibility for the 1989 incident. i have not read his actual testimony in the court hearing on the issue and don't understand the legal ramifications sp of what he said. If he took full responsibility for the event i take it that he was admitting that he hit her but i have seen no testimony that he said he did not hit her. Only a claim that he said this.
The fact that he signed that no hit agreement indicates that he was willing to risk a lot if there was another incident.

[martin II]

I am still looking for examples of Simpson being coddled and cuddled by the LAPD. Since none of these police officers came forward, then these alleged events did not take place. The reason they did not happen is because if they did, these police officers would have come forward and testified about them.

Ron Shipp, IMO is a liar because he did not run plates for Simpson, he ran them for Nicole. He knew she was out of control and even being out of control, she still did not see him as a romantic interest. He ran errands for her and many times used his shield to do favors for Nicole. Read Sheila Weller's book.

Where is the proof that Ron Shipp went to his boss and asked to drop the charges? Where is the proof that Ron Shipp, if he did do this, he did not do it of his own accord because he did not want to lose the Juice as a friend?

IMO, if Shipp and these other alleged or so called friends really knew what they have claimed to know and they did nothing, then all of them should spend the rest of their lives swimming in Nicole's and Ron's blood for the rest of their lives in their sleep. Again, IMO. They all should be zombies because of the guilt they feel. IMO, I don't see any of them of losing sleep over their role in Nicole's death as well as Ron's. Again, IMO.


What we know is that Shipp increased his status with many lapd officers by bringing them to ojs house to use his pool and tennis court and get valuable signed oj autographs. So it looks like shipp and le was using oj not coddling him.

[Kate Sachel]

From memory oj took full responsibility for the 1989 incident. i have not read his actual testimony in the court hearing on the issue and don't understand the legal ramifications sp of what he said. If he took full responsibility for the event i take it that he was admitting that he hit her but i have seen no testimony that he said he did not hit her. Only a claim that he said this.
The fact that he signed that no hit agreement indicates that he was willing to risk a lot if there was another incident.

Well let's clear this up and allow me to show you the actual deposition of OJ Simpson regarding the 1989 beating that he laid upon Nicole:

Deposition, January 25, 1996 conducted by Daniel Petrocelli:

Q: You mean you thought about her hitting Michelle, your maid, but you didn't think about your hitting Nicole. Is that what you're saying?

A: I didn't hit Nicole.

Q: Not once. Is that correct?

A: Not once.

Q: And you never once raised your fist to her and hit her?

A: No, that's correct.

Q: Did you ever once raise your hand and slap her?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Did you strike her?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Before you put her in the grip, did you hit her?

A: No.

Q: Punch her?

A: No.

Q: Strike her in any way?

A: No.

Q: Before you put her in the grip, in the headlock, did you make any contact with her face at all?

A: No.

Q: So I just want to get this clear. In your entire relationship with Nicole --Withdrawn. In your entire relationship with Nicole and the entire time that you knew Nicole, you never once hit her with your fist. Is that true?

A: Never once did I ever hit her with my fist, ever.

Q: You never once slapped her with your hand?

A: Never once have I ever slapped Nicole.

Q: And never once did you strike her with your hand.

A: Never.

Q: Never once did you strangle her.

A: Never.

Q: Never once did you choke her?

A: Never.

Q: Never once did you beat her.

A: Never.

Q: Never once did you physically hurt her.

A: Never.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I am still looking for examples of Simpson being coddled and cuddled by the LAPD. Since none of these police officers came forward, then these alleged events did not take place. The reason they did not happen is because if they did, these police officers would have come forward and testified about them.

Ron Shipp, IMO is a liar because he did not run plates for Simpson, he ran them for Nicole. He knew she was out of control and even being out of control, she still did not see him as a romantic interest. He ran errands for her and many times used his shield to do favors for Nicole. Read Sheila Weller's book.

Where is the proof that Ron Shipp went to his boss and asked to drop the charges? Where is the proof that Ron Shipp, if he did do this, he did not do it of his own accord because he did not want to lose the Juice as a friend?

IMO, if Shipp and these other alleged or so called friends really knew what they have claimed to know and they did nothing, then all of them should spend the rest of their lives swimming in Nicole's and Ron's blood for the rest of their lives in their sleep. Again, IMO. They all should be zombies because of the guilt they feel. IMO, I don't see any of them of losing sleep over their role in Nicole's death as well as Ron's. Again, IMO.

I think it's a very dangerous assumption to make, in any situation, that because someone did not come forward means that an event did not take place.

You have spoken largely about a law enforcement's code of silence, and seem to believe heavily in that. With that said, why suddenly did an event not happen simply because no officer came forward?

I can think of a quite huge reason why officers that have coddled OJ would not have come forward. Nicole Brown has been brutally murdered, OJ is the prime suspect. If you are an officer that has responded to a call of domestic violence against Nicole in which OJ is the perpetrator and you did nothing in regard to that situation because you were coddling OJ, it's going to look pretty bad for you to step forward years later and admit that you knew.

I believe that you missed the point about Ron Shipp asking that the 1989 charges be dropped; my point in that is that obviously he was a toady who reveled in whatever camaraderie he had with OJ, and as such turned his back and ultimately tried to help OJ. The point is that he did do it of his own accord.

Where is your proof please that Ron Shipp never ran plates for OJ Simpson?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

What we know is that Shipp increased his status with many lapd officers by bringing them to ojs house to use his pool and tennis court and get valuable signed oj autographs. So it looks like shipp and le was using oj not coddling him.

Thank you for posting this; it is quite obvious that OJ Simpson enjoyed extremely cordial relations with law enforcement.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thanks for that William.

Happy to be of service.

[William Anthony]

That seems to be an exaggeration, but IIRC the book the jurors almost immediately went to the 99 cent store. You seem to be talking about present day sales.

I know you hate it, but Furhman seems to be an accomplished writer. He's written several books that seemed to do well.

A tribute to MF's ability to spin a tale.

[William Anthony]

What we know is that Shipp increased his status with many lapd officers by bringing them to ojs house to use his pool and tennis court and get valuable signed oj autographs. So it looks like shipp and le was using oj not coddling him.

The evidence allows reasonable inferences that Ship may have been suffering from DTs by alcohol abuse and may have tried to elevate Simpson to the status of MLK with the purported I had a dream comment.

[William Anthony]

"Q: YOU'RE NOT REALLY THIS MAN'S FRIEND, ARE YOU, SIR?

A: WELL, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN IT, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY I WAS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, ONE OF HIS SERVANTS. I DID POLICE STUFF FOR HIM ALL THE TIME. I RAN LICENSE PLATES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I LOVED THE GUY.

Q: YOU WEREN'T THE KIND OF FRIEND THAT HE WOULD SHARE SOME PRIVATE SECRET WITH, WERE YOU, SIR?

A: NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THE 1989 BEATING WHERE HE NEEDED ME."

Hence, Simpson would not have shared the alleged I have had dreams...with Ship.

[martin II]

I have found no testimony or article to support the claim that Shipp went to his boss and asked that charges be dropped. Maby the person that made the claim can give the link.

i have also seen no evidence that le was supporting oj as has been claimed so i guess that is also just whats in some ones mind.Absent proof.

[martin II]

The evidence allows reasonable inferences that Ship may have been suffering from DTs by alcohol abuse and may have tried to elevate Simpson to the status of MLK with the purported I had a dream comment.

Drunks hear voices all the time. He could have thought he was talking to oj when he heard that voice and was actually in a drug store buying asprins.

[martin II]

Cops rarely testify unless forced to do so.if there were some that had info on abuse you can believe the DA would have had them come forth as they needed as much help as they could get on that false abuse claim.I dont think any cop had any info on abuse therefore their absence.

[Kate Sachel]

Cops rarely testify unless forced to do so.if there were some that had info on abuse you can believe the DA would have had them come forth as they needed as much help as they could get on that false abuse claim.I dont think any cop had any info on abuse therefore their absence.

By the same token, then I would assume that all of the minorities that Fuhrman allegedly victimized throughout the years would have come marching forth as well, either to testify or share their stories and earn a buck.

Yet they didn't.

Therefore, those incidents did not happen. It's as easy as that correct? Thank goodness for myself that I have the luxury of not being that naive.

Kate

[martin II]

"Q: YOU'RE NOT REALLY THIS MAN'S FRIEND, ARE YOU, SIR?

A: WELL, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN IT, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY I WAS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, ONE OF HIS SERVANTS. I DID POLICE STUFF FOR HIM ALL THE TIME. I RAN LICENSE PLATES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I LOVED THE GUY.

Q: YOU WEREN'T THE KIND OF FRIEND THAT HE WOULD SHARE SOME PRIVATE SECRET WITH, WERE YOU, SIR?

A: NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THE 1989 BEATING WHERE HE NEEDED ME."

Hence, Simpson would not have shared the alleged I have had dreams...with Ship.


wonder when did Shipp realize he was a oj servant before the murders or after.

[martin II]

People watch listed all the minority charges against furhman so that is a fact that people made charges.Witnesses testified to his racist rants against minorities and jews. It is difficult to understand why some continue to ignore this unless they are not offended by his words. The city paid Bratton $100,000 just before the trial. The man furhman planted a knife on.

[William Anthony]

People watch listed all the minority charges against furhman so that is a fact that people made charges.Witnesses testified to his racist rants against minorities and jews. It is difficult to understand why some continue to ignore this unless they are not offended by his words. The city paid Bratton $100,000 just before the trial. The man furhman planted a knife on.

We have MF's words on the tapes and the judge's instructions that at some point the evidence would become cumulative (which Darden couldn't correctly pronounce until corrected by the magnificent one).

[William Anthony]

wonder when did Shipp realize he was a oj servant before the murders or after.

I think before the murders he realized that Simpson did not consider him a close friend.

[weezer]

By the same token, then I would assume that all of the minorities that Fuhrman allegedly victimized throughout the years would have come marching forth as well, either to testify or share their stories and earn a buck.

Yet they didn't.

Therefore, those incidents did not happen. It's as easy as that correct? Thank goodness for myself that I have the luxury of not being that naive.

Kate

excellent point Kate!

wasn't it orenthal that made the statement about how many times they'd been out there, hadn't done anything so why now?

[William Anthony]

excellent point Kate!

wasn't it orenthal that made the statement about how many times they'd been out there, hadn't done anything so why now?

MF was only there once but that incident was allegedly indelibly pressed in his mind. Cumulative.

[Kate Sachel]

excellent point Kate!

wasn't it orenthal that made the statement about how many times they'd been out there, hadn't done anything so why now?

Indeed it was he that made that statement.

I re-read his civil trial deposition several weeks ago and was embarrassed while doing so at some of the responses that he gave. Nicole was beaten bloody, with hand prints still on her neck, extremely visible bruising and cuts and he testifies that he feels fully responsible for the injuries she received while denying that he at any time hit her or even slapped her. He "rassled" her is what he claimed.

I have heard so much on this forum about alleged lies told by witnesses for the prosecution, and yet not one party from the "not guilty" camp wants to acknowledge the blatant lies that OJ Simpson has told, all the while claiming to be fair and unbiased.

Bulls--t.

Kate

[weezer]

Indeed it was he that made that statement.

I re-read his civil trial deposition several weeks ago and was embarrassed while doing so at some of the responses that he gave. Nicole was beaten bloody, with hand prints still on her neck, extremely visible bruising and cuts and he testifies that he feels fully responsible for the injuries she received while denying that he at any time hit her or even slapped her. He "rassled" her is what he claimed.

I have heard so much on this forum about alleged lies told by witnesses for the prosecution, and yet not one party from the "not guilty" camp wants to acknowledge the blatant lies that OJ Simpson has told, all the while claiming to be fair and unbiased.

Bulls--t.

Kate

perfect! I think Nicole thought the 'agreement to tear up the pre-nup' that was written after the beating was her insurance against more abuse.

[William Anthony]

perfect! I think Nicole thought the 'agreement to tear up the pre-nup' that was written after the beating was her insurance against more abuse.

The evidence of domestic abuse was presented and deliberated and the verdict was not guilty.

[tv]

perfect! I think Nicole thought the 'agreement to tear up the pre-nup' that was written after the beating was her insurance against more abuse.

For a long time she was probably hoping things would change -- always hoping for that better day. By the time she was living at Bundy she knew nothing would ever change. I think 'resigned' is the word that Kate used yesterday.

[William Anthony]

For a long time she was probably hoping things would change -- always hoping for that better day. By the time she was living at Bundy she knew nothing would ever change. I think 'resigned' is the word that Kate used yesterday.

Not guilty as charged-murder.

[Kate Sachel]

For a long time she was probably hoping things would change -- always hoping for that better day. By the time she was living at Bundy she knew nothing would ever change. I think 'resigned' is the word that Kate used yesterday.

I agree wholly. I think that people always want to believe that the ones they love can change, whether the change involves learning how to stop throwing their dirty socks on the floor or an abusive pattern.

I believe Nicole loved him. I also believe that he believes he loved Nicole, and in his own sick and twisted way I believe also that he did. She probably really questioned whether or not she deserved what she got from time to time. After all, OJ Simpson was an extremely charismatic man with an amazing way of charming any person he encountered. By all accounts, he was generous with both his time and his money. People loved the Juice. In the face of that, in seeing that the world adored him, she more than wondered at times whether it was just her that was doing something wrong; that perhaps if she were "more" for him or to him then something might be different.

Kate

[martin II]

perfect! I think Nicole thought the 'agreement to tear up the pre-nup' that was written after the beating was her insurance against more abuse.

Since the pre-nup was never torn up sounds like there was never any more abuse. She never tried to cash in that insurance.:cool:

[martin II]

William

The known fact is that nicole wrote oj a long letter explaining that threpy had taught her much about their relationship. She actually took the blame for many of their problems and asked him to give her another chance by allowing her to come home to Rockingham to be with him.

During the trial period it was Nicole that was pushing for oj to let her come back and it was oj that continued to say no.Wait until the year is over.

I have seen no post by any G mentioning this letter. However i have not really seen any post by any G claiming to be fair so i would not expect to see referance to this issue.:cool:
imo

[martin II]

For a long time she was probably hoping things would change -- always hoping for that better day. By the time she was living at Bundy she knew nothing would ever change. I think 'resigned' is the word that Kate used yesterday.

She was living at Bundy during the trial period that she requested from oj. right?

[martin II]

MF was only there once but that incident was allegedly indelibly pressed in his mind. Cumulative.

Correct. How did Furhman know Nicole had breast implants that he frequently talked about at his office.And why was he speaking about her in this manner.

[Kate Sachel]

William

The known fact is that nicole wrote oj a long letter explaining that threpy had taught her much about their relationship. She actually took the blame for many of their problems and asked him to give her another chance by allowing her to come home to Rockingham to be with him.

During the trial period it was Nicole that was pushing for oj to let her come back and it was oj that continued to say no.Wait until the year is over.

I have seen no post by any G mentioning this letter. However i have not really seen any post by any G claiming to be fair so i would not expect to see referance to this issue.:cool:
imo

You are wholly and blatantly wrong. That letter has been discussed in depth on this forum with several parties from the "guilty" camp acknowledging the content of the letter and the fact that the content only helped prove the point of how much more it must have angered OJ to have had Nicole begging for reconciliation only to dump him in the end.

Kate

[weezer]

You are wholly and blatantly wrong. That letter has been discussed in depth on this forum with several parties from the "guilty" camp acknowledging the content of the letter and the fact that the content only helped prove the point of how much more it must have angered OJ to have had Nicole begging for reconciliation only to dump him in the end.

Kate

I remember orenthal telling the story about their last trip to cabo or wherever and Nicole having some kind of breakdown where she was shaking, etc., and said to him, 'I can't do this." -- orenthal tried to say it was a nervous breakdown brought on by what she had been doing while they were separated -- I think that was when she realized it was over for her.

[martin II]

There seems to be no shortage of posters with creative ideas of what Nicole thought or what they think she thought about her relationship with oj. It seems that some paint a picture of her as some bobble headed woman that if she was being beaten did not know what to do about it. This is not the picture i have of Nicole. From testimony and friends comments she was a strong willed person that drove her own life style and made her own life decisions.

Nicole suggested that she and oj do the year trial test. It was Nicole that decided that she wanted to test her freedom and she did. It was Nicole that after this freedom period, said she wanted to come home and asked oj to give her another chance as stated in her letter to him. It was oj that refused to allow her to. Nicole was no dummy. She knew what she wanted and it was to get back to OJ and Rockingham.imo

[martin II]

I remember orenthal telling the story about their last trip to cabo or wherever and Nicole having some kind of breakdown where she was shaking, etc., and said to him, 'I can't do this." -- orenthal tried to say it was a nervous breakdown brought on by what she had been doing while they were separated -- I think that was when she realized it was over for her.

That must have been the Cabo trip that oj left early and Nicole and Fay met some guy at the hotel and she deveopled some kind of relationship with even when they returned back to Brentwood. Right.
His name slips me but i believe he was mentioned in the list of men nicole was seeing in testimony.

[weezer]

". . .And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

It made me take a look at my life with you -- my wonderful life with the superstar that wonderful man, O.J. Simpson the father of my kids -- that husband of that terribly insecure (illegible) -- the girl with no self esteem (illegible) of worth -- she must be (illegible) those things to with a guy like that.

It certainly doesn't take a strong person to be with a guy like that and certainly no one would be envious of that life.

I agree after we married things changed -- we couldn't have house fulls of people like I used to have over & barbque for, because I had other responsabilities. I didn't want to go to alot of events & I'd back down at the last minute on fuctions & trips I admit I'm sorry --

I just believe that a relationship is based on trust -- and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. it's just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you're a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heatache -- I tried so hard with him -- I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance. . ." :rose:

[Kate Sachel]

". . .And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

It made me take a look at my life with you -- my wonderful life with the superstar that wonderful man, O.J. Simpson the father of my kids -- that husband of that terribly insecure (illegible) -- the girl with no self esteem (illegible) of worth -- she must be (illegible) those things to with a guy like that.

It certainly doesn't take a strong person to be with a guy like that and certainly no one would be envious of that life.

I agree after we married things changed -- we couldn't have house fulls of people like I used to have over & barbque for, because I had other responsabilities. I didn't want to go to alot of events & I'd back down at the last minute on fuctions & trips I admit I'm sorry --

I just believe that a relationship is based on trust -- and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. it's just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you're a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heatache -- I tried so hard with him -- I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance. . ." :rose:

Bless you for re-posting this ...

Kate

[tv]

". . .And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

It made me take a look at my life with you -- my wonderful life with the superstar that wonderful man, O.J. Simpson the father of my kids -- that husband of that terribly insecure (illegible) -- the girl with no self esteem (illegible) of worth -- she must be (illegible) those things to with a guy like that.

It certainly doesn't take a strong person to be with a guy like that and certainly no one would be envious of that life.

I agree after we married things changed -- we couldn't have house fulls of people like I used to have over & barbque for, because I had other responsabilities. I didn't want to go to alot of events & I'd back down at the last minute on fuctions & trips I admit I'm sorry --

I just believe that a relationship is based on trust -- and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. it's just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you're a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heatache -- I tried so hard with him -- I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance. . ." :rose:

If that's what she has to feel sorry for I'll stack it up against his abuse any day. It also shows she didn't like the celebrity lifestyle and didn't marry him because of who he was but because she loved him.

[William Anthony]

William

The known fact is that nicole wrote oj a long letter explaining that threpy had taught her much about their relationship. She actually took the blame for many of their problems and asked him to give her another chance by allowing her to come home to Rockingham to be with him.

During the trial period it was Nicole that was pushing for oj to let her come back and it was oj that continued to say no.Wait until the year is over.

I have seen no post by any G mentioning this letter. However i have not really seen any post by any G claiming to be fair so i would not expect to see referance to this issue.:cool:
imo

Spousal abuse did not =murder.

[William Anthony]

If that's what she has to feel sorry for I'll stack it up against his abuse any day. It also shows she didn't like the celebrity lifestyle and didn't marry him because of who he was but because she loved him.

It seems to be a human tendency to say one is blameless.

[martin II]

If that's what she has to feel sorry for I'll stack it up against his abuse any day. It also shows she didn't like the celebrity lifestyle and didn't marry him because of who he was but because she loved him.

How about she was tired of being a waitress and had realized a immediate improvement in her life style, financial security and social status.

[martin II]

It seems to be a human tendency to say one is blameless.

One is always the one to be blamed and the other is always blameless regardless of reality.

[weezer]

SIMPSON: aaaahh

LANGE: And nobody's gonna get hurt.

SIMPSON: I'm the only one that deserves--

LANGE: No you don't deserve that.

SIMPSON: I'm gonna get hurt.

LANGE: You do not deserve to get hurt. You do not deserve to get hurt.

SIMPSON: aaahh

LANGE: Don't do this.

SIMPSON: All I did was love Nicole. That's all I did was love her.

[GreenIce]

I think it's a very dangerous assumption to make, in any situation, that because someone did not come forward means that an event did not take place.

You have spoken largely about a law enforcement's code of silence, and seem to believe heavily in that. With that said, why suddenly did an event not happen simply because no officer came forward?

I can think of a quite huge reason why officers that have coddled OJ would not have come forward. Nicole Brown has been brutally murdered, OJ is the prime suspect. If you are an officer that has responded to a call of domestic violence against Nicole in which OJ is the perpetrator and you did nothing in regard to that situation because you were coddling OJ, it's going to look pretty bad for you to step forward years later and admit that you knew.

I believe that you missed the point about Ron Shipp asking that the 1989 charges be dropped; my point in that is that obviously he was a toady who reveled in whatever camaraderie he had with OJ, and as such turned his back and ultimately tried to help OJ. The point is that he did do it of his own accord.

Where is your proof please that Ron Shipp never ran plates for OJ Simpson?

Kate

Kate,

It is just as dangerous to assume that these events did take place based on no proof. To include Ron Shipp going to his boss to ask that the changes be dropped.

You are also making a dangerous assumption that it was OJ Simpson they were protecting as well as he was the aggressor. If these events did take place, is it fair to assume that Simpson was always the aggressor?

Also, there is no evidence to support that Nicole would not have called 911, she called the police to deal with at least situation that had nothing to do with OJ Simpson. The is no evidence support that Nicole did call the police and did not receive help, regardless of the situation.

Do you really think the public and the jurors would have held it against any police officer who did testify that they responded to a DV call but did not make a report at the time because, lets say that Nicole or OJ pleaded with them not to do so or they didn't feel it warranted a report, no physical altercation took place, etc? We know police responded to situations that many times they handle "off the books" or don't make a report and I don't think that is a bad thing in certain situations, however, when it comes to murder and you have first hand knowledge and as a cop you are more worried that people are going to mad at you rather then testify, I am sorry, I am just not buying it.

Also, the Simpson trial was ripe with gossip and leaks, do you really think all these police officers would not have told someone they responded to the Simpsons? I mean we heard that Mark Fuhrman said he was Nicole's personal cop, that he had seen her boob job up close and personal---how could all these officers remain silent and never tell a single sole?

[GreenIce]

By the same token, then I would assume that all of the minorities that Fuhrman allegedly victimized throughout the years would have come marching forth as well, either to testify or share their stories and earn a buck.

Yet they didn't.

Therefore, those incidents did not happen. It's as easy as that correct? Thank goodness for myself that I have the luxury of not being that naive.

Kate

Kate,

Many more people came forward in regards to MF. However, Judge Ito had to limit the number of witnesses. Also, it is important to remember the fear factor. A fellow police detective burned his log of Fuhrman's acts because he was afraid of him. If a fellow police detective is scared of MF, then what do you think his victims feel? Many of these victims knew that it would not be hard to find out where they live, where their families live. If they weren't protected the first time when they went up against MF, what made them believe they would change their minds?

[martin II]

With the LAPD goon squard running through the minority community beating and planting evidence on people it is idiotic to expect these people to volunteer to testify against furhamn. when the DOJ received info on Furhman
they planned to inverstigate many of the complaints but realized that the statue had run out so he dodged that bullet. Yet some never miss a beat or opportunity to rush to furhmans defence. Go figure.
The people watch investigator reported that no other officer had as many compliants lodged against then than furhman. Yet some say these claims didn't happen. That is pure hogwash.I guess they believe that People watch just made up claims.

[William Anthony]

Kate,

Many more people came forward in regards to MF. However, Judge Ito had to limit the number of witnesses. Also, it is important to remember the fear factor. A fellow police detective burned his log of Fuhrman's acts because he was afraid of him. If a fellow police detective is scared of MF, then what do you think his victims feel? Many of these victims knew that it would not be hard to find out where they live, where their families live. If they weren't protected the first time when they went up against MF, what made them believe they would change their minds?

Cumulative, :).

[William Anthony]

With the LAPD goon squard running through the minority community beating and planting evidence on people it is idiotic to expect these people to volunteer to testify against furhamn. when the DOJ received info on Furhman
they planned to inverstigate many of the complaints but realized that the statue had run out so he dodged that bullet. Yet some never miss a beat or opportunity to rush to furhmans defence. Go figure.
The people watch investigator reported that no other officer had as many compliants lodged against then than furhman. Yet some say these claims didn't happen. That is pure hogwash.I guess they believe that People watch just made up claims.

Shall we concede as the prosecution did and say that MF was a racist detective and soon to be convicted perjurer?

[martin II]

Kate,

It is just as dangerous to assume that these events did take place based on no proof. To include Ron Shipp going to his boss to ask that the changes be dropped.

You are also making a dangerous assumption that it was OJ Simpson they were protecting as well as he was the aggressor. If these events did take place, is it fair to assume that Simpson was always the aggressor?

Also, there is no evidence to support that Nicole would not have called 911, she called the police to deal with at least situation that had nothing to do with OJ Simpson. The is no evidence support that Nicole did call the police and did not receive help, regardless of the situation.

Do you really think the public and the jurors would have held it against any police officer who did testify that they responded to a DV call but did not make a report at the time because, lets say that Nicole or OJ pleaded with them not to do so or they didn't feel it warranted a report, no physical altercation took place, etc? We know police responded to situations that many times they handle "off the books" or don't make a report and I don't think that is a bad thing in certain situations, however, when it comes to murder and you have first hand knowledge and as a cop you are more worried that people are going to mad at you rather then testify, I am sorry, I am just not buying it.

Also, the Simpson trial was ripe with gossip and leaks, do you really think all these police officers would not have told someone they responded to the Simpsons? I mean we heard that Mark Fuhrman said he was Nicole's personal cop, that he had seen her boob job up close and personal---how could all these officers remain silent and never tell a single sole?

Furhamans personal claims about nicole and that MAW must have been the talk of most of lapd. Here is a guy that is a leader in MEN AGAINST WOMEN. MAW and we have women here supporting him at every turn.I guess the word is 'DON'T MESS WITH MY FURHMAN"

[martin II]

Shall we concede as the prosecution did and say that MF was a racist detective and soon to be convicted perjurer?

YES
Clarke finally recognized furhman as the dog in the case and tossed him overboard in her closing but it was already too late. By that time everyone knew he was the dog with flees.

[martin II]

If that's what she has to feel sorry for I'll stack it up against his abuse any day. It also shows she didn't like the celebrity lifestyle and didn't marry him because of who he was but because she loved him.

It was for the money. Very few doubt that.She only knew him for a short time and she was in a condo paid for by him and willingly playing the role of the other woman.Not much time for love to sneak in.imo

[Hipcheck]

With the LAPD goon squard running through the minority community beating and planting evidence on people it is idiotic to expect these people to volunteer to testify against furhamn. when the DOJ received info on Furhman
they planned to inverstigate many of the complaints but realized that the statue had run out so he dodged that bullet. Yet some never miss a beat or opportunity to rush to furhmans defence. Go figure.
The people watch investigator reported that no other officer had as many compliants lodged against then than furhman. Yet some say these claims didn't happen. That is pure hogwash.I guess they believe that People watch just made up claims.

Link please.

[martin II]

Link please.

This has been discussed many times and posted. Read back.
If you know anything about lapd you would know about RAMPART SCANDLE

[weezer]

Link please.

good luck with that request -- I couldn't even find a 'People watch' anything that had anything to do with this case.

[Hipcheck]

This has been discussed many times and posted. Read back.

You have requested that I provide a source for what I posted and I have but I guess that doesn't pertain to you.

I haven't seen it posted where Mark Fuhrman had received over 55 commendations during his 20 year of service with the LAPD.

[martin II]

good luck with that request -- I couldn't even find a 'People watch' anything that had anything to do with this case.

The report of People Watch has been posted here more than once and i am sure you have read it. But it really dosen't matter if you fail to remember.

[Hipcheck]

good luck with that request -- I couldn't even find a 'People watch' anything that had anything to do with this case.

I won't post any links any more when asked just like Martin.

If I'm ever asked to provide I link I'll just say it's been discussed before so go read back.

[tv]

I won't post any links any more when asked just like Martin.

If I'm ever asked to provide I link I'll just say it's been discussed before so go read back.

I've been here a while and I don't remember anything about this. :shrug:

[martin II]

I've been here a while and I don't remember anything about this. :shrug:

Police watch not People Watch

Police Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group in Los Angeles, had received five complaints against Fuhrman since 1988. "I work with these files every day," says Police Watch official Michael Salcido, "and I personally handled over a thousand intakes a year and I know no other officer that has five counts against him"

It wasn't over for Fuhrman though. Now he had to answer a felony charge of perjury. He ended up pleading no contest, and received three years probation. He can no longer carry a gun or hold public office. He also could not be a cop anymore. Contrary to what many believe however, Fuhrman wasn't fired by the LAPD. He resigned, which meant he got his police pension. Meanwhilem the Justice Department initiated a review of allegations in 1995 against Fuhrman that came about when suspects Fuhrman arrested noticed that his descriptions of incidents on those tapes were similar to their own cases, and could be a possible case of brutality against him. Three years later, federal prosecutors determined that the five-year statute of limitations had long passed in relation to the allegations against Fuhrman and decided not to prosecute him. It was never determined that the charges against him were untrue, just that they could not do anything about them.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=29



Department Plagued by Reports of Sexual Harassment and Threats Against Women Officers and Wifebeating Cover-up

Los Angeles -- At a press conference today the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Center for Women & Policing, joined by City Council members Jackie Goldberg and Rita Walters, called for an independent investigation of gender bias within the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). “The call for an investigation follows recent revelations in the media of widespread, orchestrated harassment and intimidation of women officers and the Department's cover-up and failure to prosecute officers who engage in brutal wife-beating and family violence.
The Los Angeles Police Commission is expected to soon release a 250-page report on the Department's investigation of the Mark Fuhrman tapes. The tapes confirm the existence of a clandestine all-male organization within the LAPD called 'Men Against Women' (MAW), whose ultimate objective is to drive women from the force using harassment and intimidation. The organization, founded in the mid-1980's following a federal court order to hire more women officers, also used mock trials of male officers accused of "fraternizing" with women officers.


http://www.feminist.org/news/pressstory.asp?id=4577



The July 30, 1996 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported that former Detective Mark Fuhrman would receive a reprimand for disparaging the abilities of female police officers. Fuhrman participated actively in creating a hostile work environment during his time at the West Los Angeles Police station were he allegedly was a member of a group know as Men Against Women. The Los Angeles Police Department may not legally be able to impose more than a reprimand on Mr. Fuhrman for his activities in disparaging women officers and creating a hostile work environment. However, the LAPD can and must take action against the daily disparaging of women officers that occurs in nearly every precinct and division in the Police Department.



http://www.womenandpolicing.org/ncwpTestCivRights

[Hipcheck]

I read where someone posted that Peope Watch had found five complaints filed against Mark Fuhrman. Whether that was true or not I don't know becuase there was no link to verify the story.

Let's just say the story is true. Five complaints in twenty years of service isn't that many. How many of those five complaints were valid? Did Mark Fuhrman ever receive any suspensions?

Mark Fuhrman had over fifty-five commendations during his twenty years of service which says alot about what kind of police officer he was..

[Hipcheck]

It was never determined that the charges against him were untrue, just that they could not do anything about them.
]

It sound like to me that the five charges against Mark Fuhrman were never determied to be true either.

[martin II]

For those that don't believe claims that some in the lapd abuse citizens.
pick your subject.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/scandal/

[tv]

I read where someone posted that Peope Watch had found five complaints filed against Mark Fuhrman. Whether that was true or not I don't know becuase there was no link to verify the story.

Let's just say the story is true. Five complaints in twenty years of service isn't that many. How many of those five complaints were valid? Did Mark Fuhrman ever receive any suspensions?

Mark Fuhrman had over fifty-five commendations during his twenty years of service which says alot about what kind of police officer he was..

Nothing has ever been posted that supports the allegations of Mark Fuhrman being abusive or using racial slurs against people he arrested or interacted with in his duties as a police officer. There is a lot of innuendo with no factual support.

[martin II]

I read where someone posted that Peope Watch had found five complaints filed against Mark Fuhrman. Whether that was true or not I don't know becuase there was no link to verify the story.

Let's just say the story is true. Five complaints in twenty years of service isn't that many. How many of those five complaints were valid? Did Mark Fuhrman ever receive any suspensions?

Mark Fuhrman had over fifty-five commendations during his twenty years of service which says alot about what kind of police officer he was..

I have no problen with your defence of furhman. I understand why you would.:cool:

[Hipcheck]

For those that don't belive claims that some in the lapd abuse citizens.
pick your subject.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/scandal/

Was Mark Fuhrman involved in any of this?

What did People Watch have to say about these complaints?

[weezer]

Was Mark Fuhrman involved in any of this?

What did People Watch have to say about these complaints?

I've never understood the reasoning of the NG's: just because orenthal spent 17 years abusing Nicole, doesn't mean he would murder her but Fuhrman used the n-word in a screenplay and he is the lowest of the low. :shrug:

[tv]

I've never understood the reasoning of the NG's: just because orenthal spent 17 years abusing Nicole, doesn't mean he would murder her but Fuhrman used the n-word in a screenplay and he is the lowest of the low. :shrug:

I guess it's the Simpson paradox. Why are so many excuses made for a man that evidence shows killed two people yet a police officer helping to write a screenplay is vilified? Laura Hart McKinney testified that everything on the tapes was for the screenplay and Fuhrman never used that language with her other than on the tapes. I really don't care what's said about Mark Fuhrman but people should at least stick to the truth.

[GreenIce]

Since the pre-nup was never torn up sounds like there was never any more abuse. She never tried to cash in that insurance.:cool:

Martin,

IMO, the clause Simpson had his lawyer draw up is overlooked. First, that clause proves that Simpson was afraid of the consequences of he ever did it again. He even wrote in the letter that the LAPD made it clear, if it ever happened again, he was going to jail.

Another point, if Simpson was a chronic wife beater, a piece of paper was not going to stop him from putting his hands on Nicole. IMO, a chronic wife beater can't control themselves and IMO, they see no reason why they should have too. Again, IMO.

I think Nicole's refusal to use this during the divorce proceedings also is overlooked. While Nicole never mentioned the names, it appears she was advised by her lawyer to use the past as leverage in the divorce which is perhaps she was told to seek out Dr. Forward. Nicole did not do this.

Another interesting thing about the 1989 incident, according to Sheila Weller's book, Simpson lived in the guest house for about 3 months after this incident. It was up to Nicole when he was allowed to move back in.

Again, IMO, Simpson got the message loud and clear.

[martin II]

I've never understood the reasoning of the NG's: just because orenthal spent 17 years abusing Nicole, doesn't mean he would murder her but Fuhrman used the n-word in a screenplay and he is the lowest of the low. :shrug:

Furhman use the n word more than on the tapes and i know you know this.
Furhman with his own mouth informed people that he was a racist more than once he also admitted that he would manufacture evidence agaionst mixed couples and jews.
However it is your right to see his behavior and comments to mean something other than what came from his mouth.

[GreenIce]

Furhman use the n word more than on the tapes and i know you know this.
Furhman with his own mouth informed people that he was a racist more than once he also admitted that he would manufacture evidence agaionst mixed couples and jews.
However it is your right to see his behavior and comments to mean something other than what came from his mouth.

Martin,

I answer this post on the race thread. I used FBG's post but addressed it to you.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the clause Simpson had his lawyer draw up is overlooked. First, that clause proves that Simpson was afraid of the consequences of he ever did it again. He even wrote in the letter that the LAPD made it clear, if it ever happened again, he was going to jail.

Another point, if Simpson was a chronic wife beater, a piece of paper was not going to stop him from putting his hands on Nicole. IMO, a chronic wife beater can't control themselves and IMO, they see no reason why they should have too. Again, IMO.

I think Nicole's refusal to use this during the divorce proceedings also is overlooked. While Nicole never mentioned the names, it appears she was advised by her lawyer to use the past as leverage in the divorce which is perhaps she was told to seek out Dr. Forward. Nicole did not do this.

Another interesting thing about the 1989 incident, according to Sheila Weller's book, Simpson lived in the guest house for about 3 months after this incident. It was up to Nicole when he was allowed to move back in.

Again, IMO, Simpson got the message loud and clear.


It was a friend or friends of nicole that told her to use it as leverage and also told her to make up false stuff against oj to try for a larger settlement. I think she did not appear in court on the final settlement day.
i will look for it.

[martin II]

I guess it's the Simpson paradox. Why are so many excuses made for a man that evidence shows killed two people yet a police officer helping to write a screenplay is vilified? Laura Hart McKinney testified that everything on the tapes was for the screenplay and Fuhrman never used that language with her other than on the tapes. I really don't care what's said about Mark Fuhrman but people should at least stick to the truth.

In the lapd investigation it was reported that most cops claimed that reports of wide spread abuse was referred to as the Furhman issue. Reason was furhmans comments on and off tape were exactly what was reported the current cops had done.Furhmans comments were from his experience not just something he made up for LHM.

It is a fact that furhman talked this way in at least three times that we know about when he was not on tape.

[GreenIce]

In the lapd investigation it was reported that most cops claimed that reports of wide spread abuse was referred to as the Furhman issue. Reason was furhmans comments on and off tape were exactly what was reported the current cops had done.Furhmans comments were from his experience not just something he made up for LHM.

It is a fact that furhman talked this way in at least three times that we know about when he was not on tape.

Martin,

IMO, focusing on the n-word regarding the tapes was a ploy, a very successful one by Judge Ito as well as the media to again cover for MF. If you take out the n-word and any racial overtones, then you are left with planting evidence, brutality, lying, etc.

What I find most distrubing but most telling about how far the Judge was willing to protect a man, even a man who mentally tortured his own wife ,was when he did allow the comments he made to LHM in July 1994. When I heard that, I thought, that is it, they got him, it is over. For Judge Ito to make his ruling as he did, to this day, I don't understand why he did not allow those comments in.

Again, I wish people would focus on the actions and not on the n-word. I also wish they would stop lying to themselves regarding the tapes as well. From what I remember, the majority of the tapes dealt with African-Americans, not women on the police force.

[GreenIce]

It was a friend or friends of nicole that told her to use it as leverage and also told her to make up false stuff against oj to try for a larger settlement. I think she did not appear in court on the final settlement day.
i will look for it.

Martin,

I thought it was her lawyer and Dr. Forward. I think Simpson said that he believed Nicole did write it but she told him that her lawyer wanted her to do this and that Nicole never would have testified under oath about this.

To be honest with you, it seems like the Simpsons did not have an acrimonous divorce, at least during the proceedings. I am sure the pre-nup had a lot to do with that but I don't remember it being a severely bitter one.

Of course money is an issue and it will always be one in a divorce. That does not bring out the best in people and it seems to me that Nicole did not take that route. Again, IMO. Which I am sure several of her friends were not happy about. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I thought it was her lawyer and Dr. Forward. I think Simpson said that he believed Nicole did write it but she told him that her lawyer wanted her to do this and that Nicole never would have testified under oath about this.

To be honest with you, it seems like the Simpsons did not have an acrimonous divorce, at least during the proceedings. I am sure the pre-nup had a lot to do with that but I don't remember it being a severely bitter one.

Of course money is an issue and it will always be one in a divorce. That does not bring out the best in people and it seems to me that Nicole did not take that route. Again, IMO. Which I am sure several of her friends were not happy about. Again, IMO.

GI
It could have been both. Something else. Nicole origionally wanted oj to give her the Rockingham house. oj refused explaining what the house meant to him and it seems that nicole agreed and dropped the request.

I guess Nicole thought the settlement was fair and there was no reason to try to take oj to the cleaners. She certainly didn't make a lot of abuse charges.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, focusing on the n-word regarding the tapes was a ploy, a very successful one by Judge Ito as well as the media to again cover for MF. If you take out the n-word and any racial overtones, then you are left with planting evidence, brutality, lying, etc.

What I find most distrubing but most telling about how far the Judge was willing to protect a man, even a man who mentally tortured his own wife ,was when he did allow the comments he made to LHM in July 1994. When I heard that, I thought, that is it, they got him, it is over. For Judge Ito to make his ruling as he did, to this day, I don't understand why he did not allow those comments in.

Again, I wish people would focus on the actions and not on the n-word. I also wish they would stop lying to themselves regarding the tapes as well. From what I remember, the majority of the tapes dealt with African-Americans, not women on the police force.

Furhman was hired to talk about MAW men against women in the department.
This is the subject matter LHM was investigating and interested in. Furhman immediately started talking about his racial views and his history on the force.
What he had done to jews and minorities and how he had planted evidence.

[martin II]

Nothing has ever been posted that supports the allegations of Mark Fuhrman being abusive or using racial slurs against people he arrested or interacted with in his duties as a police officer. There is a lot of innuendo with no factual support.

You know that the city paid Bratten $100,000 to settle his case against furhman for planting the knife so i don't know why you would make such a post of untruths.

[William Anthony]

Nothing has ever been posted that supports the allegations of Mark Fuhrman being abusive or using racial slurs against people he arrested or interacted with in his duties as a police officer. There is a lot of innuendo with no factual support.

That is if you dismiss the defense witnesses.

[William Anthony]

I read where someone posted that Peope Watch had found five complaints filed against Mark Fuhrman. Whether that was true or not I don't know becuase there was no link to verify the story.

Let's just say the story is true. Five complaints in twenty years of service isn't that many. How many of those five complaints were valid? Did Mark Fuhrman ever receive any suspensions?

Mark Fuhrman had over fifty-five commendations during his twenty years of service which says alot about what kind of police officer he was..

One who would lie under oath.

[William Anthony]

I guess it's the Simpson paradox. Why are so many excuses made for a man that evidence shows killed two people yet a police officer helping to write a screenplay is vilified? Laura Hart McKinney testified that everything on the tapes was for the screenplay and Fuhrman never used that language with her other than on the tapes (Not true). I really don't care what's said about Mark Fuhrman but people should at least stick to the truth.

"MR. COCHRAN: And in the use of these words and other things during when he was talking to you, would he describe his experiences in police work?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, calls for a conclusion, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.

MS. MCKINNY: Would you ask the question again, please? Sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly. In the use of these words and during the course of the interview did Detective Fuhrman describe his experiences in being a police officer?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes."

[martin II]

That is if you dismiss the defense witnesses.

And the defence cross

[martin II]

And the defence cross

Defense cross and the side bars.

Some of the most interesting information in a trial happens in side bars which many overlook.

At least two witnesses testified to furhmans use of the n word and recounting
his crime activities as a cop in court on tape and some says it is not true.

Furhman was a leader in MAW which is why LHM hired him in the fiurst place. Yet we have women that say they are concerned about gender discrimination
and abuse of women that defend him at every opportunity.imo

[weezer]

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1996 Homicide Data
Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents
California
282 females were murdered by males in California in 1996
The homicide rate among females murdered by males in California was 1.77 per 100,000 in 1996

Ranked 17th highest in the United States

Age

Forty-two female homicide victims (15 percent) were less than 18 years old, and 30 victims (11 percent) were 65 years of age or older.

Race

Female murder victims in which race was identified (275 victims) included: 191 white females, 68 black females, and 16 Asian or Pacific Islanders.

Most Common Weapons

In cases in which the weapon used in the homicide could be identified (275 victims), more than half of all female homicide victims (150 victims or 55 percent) were shot and killed with guns. Nearly nine out of 10 gun victims (131 victims or 87 percent) were killed with handguns. There were 46 females killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 32 females killed by bodily force, 19 females killed by strangulation, and 17 females killed with blunt objects. The remainder of cases involved other non-firearm weapons.

Victim/Offender Relationship

Nearly nine out of 10 female victims (247 victims or 88 percent) were murdered by someone they knew. Only 35 female victims (12 percent) were killed by strangers. Of victims who knew their offenders, six out of 10 (148 victims or 60 percent) were wives, common law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offenders. Among the 148 female intimates murdered, two thirds (98 victims or 66 percent) were killed with guns; 88 percent of these gun victims (86 victims) were shot and killed with handguns.

Circumstance

In cases in which the circumstance of the homicide could be identified (280 cases), 88 percent (246 cases) were not related to the commission of another felony. Of these cases, 77 percent (189 cases) involved arguments between the victim and offender.

[tv]

OJ Simpson falls right into these statistics. I can never understand why his defenders don't see the relationship between his long-term abuse of Nicole and his ultimate murder of her. :shrug:

[weezer]

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

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

[tv]

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

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

OJ Simpson was coddled and pampered by LE. Otherwise, he would have never escaped arrest so many times. It seems everyone turned their heads starting with the police all the way down to family, friends and neighbors.

[martin II]

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1996 Homicide Data
Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents
California
282 females were murdered by males in California in 1996
The homicide rate among females murdered by males in California was 1.77 per 100,000 in 1996

Ranked 17th highest in the United States

Age

Forty-two female homicide victims (15 percent) were less than 18 years old, and 30 victims (11 percent) were 65 years of age or older.

Race

Female murder victims in which race was identified (275 victims) included: 191 white females, 68 black females, and 16 Asian or Pacific Islanders.

Most Common Weapons

In cases in which the weapon used in the homicide could be identified (275 victims), more than half of all female homicide victims (150 victims or 55 percent) were shot and killed with guns. Nearly nine out of 10 gun victims (131 victims or 87 percent) were killed with handguns. There were 46 females killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 32 females killed by bodily force, 19 females killed by strangulation, and 17 females killed with blunt objects. The remainder of cases involved other non-firearm weapons.

Victim/Offender Relationship

Nearly nine out of 10 female victims (247 victims or 88 percent) were murdered by someone they knew. Only 35 female victims (12 percent) were killed by strangers. Of victims who knew their offenders, six out of 10 (148 victims or 60 percent) were wives, common law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offenders. Among the 148 female intimates murdered, two thirds (98 victims or 66 percent) were killed with guns; 88 percent of these gun victims (86 victims) were shot and killed with handguns.

Circumstance

In cases in which the circumstance of the homicide could be identified (280 cases), 88 percent (246 cases) were not related to the commission of another felony. Of these cases, 77 percent (189 cases) involved arguments between the victim and offender.


The data is interesting but it has nothing to do with the specific simpson case. no gun was involved in this case and the prosecution had to prove their claims by proof not by DATA.

[weezer]

OJ Simpson was coddled and pampered by LE. Otherwise, he would have never escaped arrest so many times. It seems everyone turned their heads starting with the police all the way down to family, friends and neighbors.

when you read his testimony about how after he beat Nicole and the police were called, he calmly got in his car and drove off -- such arrogance. So here's my question -- we know charges were brought and orenthal, like he's done his whole life, set his own rules of what and/or whether he would abide by the ruling -- but how did he not get arrested? I mean, isn't that the norm? you beat somebody up, they go to the police, you get arrested. :shrug:

[martin II]

when you read his testimony about how after he beat Nicole and the police were called, he calmly got in his car and drove off -- such arrogance. So here's my question -- we know charges were brought and orenthal, like he's done his whole life, set his own rules of what and/or whether he would abide by the ruling -- but how did he not get arrested? I mean, isn't that the norm? you beat somebody up, they go to the police, you get arrested. :shrug:

Nicole called 911 once and she told the cops that oj did not touch her. The cops interviewed Kato oj and Nicole and left because there was no hitting.

[tv]

when you read his testimony about how after he beat Nicole and the police were called, he calmly got in his car and drove off -- such arrogance. So here's my question -- we know charges were brought and orenthal, like he's done his whole life, set his own rules of what and/or whether he would abide by the ruling -- but how did he not get arrested? I mean, isn't that the norm? you beat somebody up, they go to the police, you get arrested. :shrug:

LE let it go everytime they were called except for one time. The only explanation I can come up with is that they were coddling him due to his celebrity. If it had been a guy named Billy Bob they never heard of they would have arrested him.

Was it the incident when he got arrested that the fight was because he had sex with a woman that was staying at the house while Nicole was in the house? No real man does that and then beats up his wife when she objects. What a pos. :mad: