Random Discussions On The Case

[weezer]

* Victoria Beach incident, '86 (Darden, p. 280+1)
* Red Onion, '87 (per Denise Brown, 2/06/95 transcript)
* La Cantina, '88 (per Denise Brown, 2/06/95)
* Limo back seat incident, '88 (Darden, p. 280+1)
* New Years '89 (various criminal trial witnesses)

In addition, Faye Resnick, in her "... a Life Interrupted" mentions...

* Las Vegas incident: OJ beat Nicole and pushed her partly undressed into hotel hall, '84?
* An incident at Rockingham in which he beat her and locked her in a closet, '87
* California Beach Sushi: OJ in a drunken rage, but struck nobody, May '93.
* Many arguments, "blowups," and glaring, but no physical blows mentioned after January '89

In the civil trial, some of these were reviewed, and others were added to the list...

* India Allen (12/3/96) saw Simpson slap Nicole in a parking lot in the early '80s.
* Albert Aguilera (12/3/96) described Simpson hit Nicole in the Virginia Beach incident, '86.

[tv]

* Victoria Beach incident, '86 (Darden, p. 280+1)
* Red Onion, '87 (per Denise Brown, 2/06/95 transcript)
* La Cantina, '88 (per Denise Brown, 2/06/95)
* Limo back seat incident, '88 (Darden, p. 280+1)
* New Years '89 (various criminal trial witnesses)

In addition, Faye Resnick, in her "... a Life Interrupted" mentions...

* Las Vegas incident: OJ beat Nicole and pushed her partly undressed into hotel hall, '84?
* An incident at Rockingham in which he beat her and locked her in a closet, '87
* California Beach Sushi: OJ in a drunken rage, but struck nobody, May '93.
* Many arguments, "blowups," and glaring, but no physical blows mentioned after January '89

In the civil trial, some of these were reviewed, and others were added to the list...

* India Allen (12/3/96) saw Simpson slap Nicole in a parking lot in the early '80s.
* Albert Aguilera (12/3/96) described Simpson hit Nicole in the Virginia Beach incident, '86.

IMO, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are always many more incidents then anyone knows about.

[martin II]

IMO, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are always many more incidents then anyone knows about.

IF true the prosecution could have made a strong case for abuse or nicole could have used it in the divoice.neither happened.hahaha

[martin II]

IMO, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are always many more incidents then anyone knows about.

Do you mean thats what you think?

[Hipcheck]

IF true the prosecution could have made a strong case for abuse or nicole could have used it in the divoice.neither happened.hahaha

I don't see any thing funny about O.J. abusing Nicole but I guess you do and I think that's sick.

[martin II]

I don't see any thing funny about O.J. abusing Nicole but I guess you do and I think that's sick.

Not sick just making a point that if all of these rummors were half true the prosecution would have been able to make a better abuse claim than they did. I see you are using Fays as words of truth and that is funny.

PS

People cannot be convicted on DATA and rummors from others.Court proof is required and that great jury told us that what the prosecution told them was not proof.

[socaldiva]

IMO, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are always many more incidents then anyone knows about.

ITA. I seriously doubt the police were called each & every time there was a form of abuse. That's like saying the drunk driver only drives drunk on the occasions he's (or she's) arrested.

[Hipcheck]

Not sick just making a point that if all of these rummors were half true the prosecution would have been able to make a better abuse claim than they did. I see you are using Fays as words of truth and that is funny.

Where have I been using what Faye had said as words of truth?

[martin II]

Where have I been using what Faye had said as words of truth?

Sorry
The part about faye should have been posted to another poster. I have no reason to believe you are aware with Fays testimony
my mistake.:cool:

[weezer]

I don't see any thing funny about O.J. abusing Nicole but I guess you do and I think that's sick.

this is the same group that think the criminal jury is being treated ugly and should be off limits -- LOL

once you're around long enough, you'll come to understand that the hate list for some posters is LE, women, white people. not necessarily in that order.

[William Anthony]

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:

He was found not guilty of murder and the eminent authority on spousal abuse opined that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder.

[GreenIce]

He was found not guilty of murder and the eminent authority on spousal abuse opined that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder.

William,

One of the risks that Darden took, IMO, just backfired on him and the state's case. The DA's never introduced to DV expert witness. Why Darden would bring up the fact the defense never called Dr. Lenore Walker to the stand never made any sense to me. What was he thinking? It was the DA's who were trying to prove this was DV murder.

Bottom line, the DA's motive of the murders was not supported and 1 incident in 17 years is not enough proof that this was a DV murder. Again, IMO, this motive and their sorry attempts to prove this motive really hurt them, IMO.

[martin II]

William,

One of the risks that Darden took, IMO, just backfired on him and the state's case. The DA's never introduced to DV expert witness. Why Darden would bring up the fact the defense never called Dr. Lenore Walker to the stand never made any sense to me. What was he thinking? It was the DA's who were trying to prove this was DV murder.

Bottom line, the DA's motive of the murders was not supported and 1 incident in 17 years is not enough proof that this was a DV murder. Again, IMO, this motive and their sorry attempts to prove this motive really hurt them, IMO.


That was my point. people think he should be convicted on some date and forgot what happened in the court room.
tv seems to believe oj should have been convicted on data.

[fgump2]

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

People who have studied violence against women say that wife abusers are often more angered by rejection than by the loss of the woman. I other words, if Nicole had been killed in a car wreck in say 1992 - 1994, he would have probably adjusted to it relatively quickly. He couldn't adjust to being rejected.

As for Gs never claiming to be fair - I won't answer that. I think you have a lot of growing up that you should be trying to do - writing hahahaha about situation involving murder, domestic violence, and a lot of bitterness by people not directly involved.

I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

Most people are not saints. Put anyone under a magnifying glass, and you will find something you don't like. It is a common practive to discredit the messanger if you don't like the message.

[fgump2]

He was found not guilty of murder and the eminent authority on spousal abuse opined that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder.

I posted a while back that a psychiatrist, Saul Faerstein, wrote that SImpson was a selfish person more concerned with his popularity and future earnings than with either grief at Nicole's death, or the well being of Justin or Sydney.

I think the conclusion that Faerstein came to is a lot easier and simpler than the conclusion that Walker came to, that Simpson didn't have anti social personality disorder.

I think that Faerstein's conclusion were relatively straight forward. He probably came to that conclusion because of the relative amounts of time and emotion Simpson devoted to talking about his popularity and future earnings as opposed to his feelings about Sydney and Justin. I don't know why his report became public.

Anti social personality disorder is much more difficult to diagnose. Some psychotherapists who examined (i.e. talked with) Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald said he was an extreme example of anti social personality disorder, others denied it.

It would be interesting to know how Dr. Walker came to her conclusions

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212304]I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

fgump2,

How have Martin and I attacked the people who have said that Nicole was afraid that Simpson was going to killer her? We have asked point blank questions that you and other G's have not been able to answer.

I think it is a very to question some of Nicole's friends motives for speaking about Nicole's fear and Simpson's alleged abuse, only after she was dead. For while she was alive, these same friends still enjoyed the friendship of both the Simpsons. Some refusing to take sides and others were more concerned about losing OJ as a friend rather the Nicole. For instance, Kato. Nicole was so afraid that Simpson was going to kill her, he took OJ's offer of free room and board?

Faye, making claims that no one else made but wrote a book that not only kept her off the witness stand but painted a very ugly picture of Nicole and her habits toward the end of her life.

If Nicole was in fact fearful of her life, Dr. Forward was obligated by law to report this, she not only did not do this but she went public, broke her patient confidentiality as well as getting her license suspended. It has been pointed out that Nicole saw Dr. Forward twice, during her divorce proceedings and Nicole made no claims of abuse during the divorce. IMO, that is not attack on people, that is an attack perhaps how you wish or need to see these people.

Bottom line there is no proof of what any of these people have said only their claims that they knew this information but did nothing about it but make money off of it and try to get public sympathy after her death.

Kris Jenner was featured in the Shelia Weller book. She said that she was very afraid for Nicole at the end because of how Nicole was living were life. She made no mention of Nicole being afraid of Simpson. She also knew what Nicole was going through and what she was going to go through once her marriage ended, since she went through it. Well, not for very long because she married Bruce Jenner shortly after her divorce came through.

Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind.

Fair questions are not attacks on people, they are just that, fair questions.

Perhaps you should stop attacking people who refuse to believe everything that has been said by people who also have a motive to lie or stand to gain more from them.

[GreenIce]

I posted a while back that a psychiatrist, Saul Faerstein, wrote that SImpson was a selfish person more concerned with his popularity and future earnings than with either grief at Nicole's death, or the well being of Justin or Sydney.

I think the conclusion that Faerstein came to is a lot easier and simpler than the conclusion that Walker came to, that Simpson didn't have anti social personality disorder.

I think that Faerstein's conclusion were relatively straight forward. He probably came to that conclusion because of the relative amounts of time and emotion Simpson devoted to talking about his popularity and future earnings as opposed to his feelings about Sydney and Justin. I don't know why his report became public.

Anti social personality disorder is much more difficult to diagnose. Some psychotherapists who examined (i.e. talked with) Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald said he was an extreme example of anti social personality disorder, others denied it.

It would be interesting to know how Dr. Walker came to her conclusions

IIRC, Simpson spent several hours talking to Dr. Walker? I can't remember if Dr. Faerstein did speak to Simpson. I think he did.

[fgump2]

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.

You may think he go the message loud and clear, but I disagree. About 2 weeks before the killins Simpson made an exercise video, and made a joke about hitting "the wife". It is ironic that some think he may have killed Nicole while wearing the sweat suit he used while making the video.

[martin II]

I posted a while back that a psychiatrist, Saul Faerstein, wrote that SImpson was a selfish person more concerned with his popularity and future earnings than with either grief at Nicole's death, or the well being of Justin or Sydney. If this guy did not examine oj and no one thought his opinions were needed in the trial what he thinks means zero.

I think the conclusion that Faerstein came to is a lot easier and simpler than the conclusion that Walker came to, that Simpson didn't have anti social personality disorder. Walker examined oj.

I think that Faerstein's conclusion were relatively straight forward. He probably came to that conclusion because of the relative amounts of time and emotion Simpson devoted to talking about his popularity and future earnings as opposed to his feelings about Sydney and Justin. I don't know why his report became public. There was no testimony that oj was not a loving father that took great care of his kids.The judge in the custody hearing
stated that oj was the best person to have the kids and that included the Browns. Are you ignoring that.

Anti social personality disorder is much more difficult to diagnose. Some psychotherapists who examined (i.e. talked with) Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald said he was an extreme example of anti social personality disorder, others denied it.

It would be interesting to know how Dr. Walker came to her conclusions

No professional should make evalutations of a person that they have not treated. Its called looking for attention.

[martin II]

You may think he go the message loud and clear, but I disagree. About 2 weeks before the killins Simpson made an exercise video, and made a joke about hitting "the wife". It is ironic that some think he may have killed Nicole while wearing the sweat suit he used while making the video.

Again you are wrong, You have your sweat suite and video mixed up.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212304]I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

fgump2,

How have Martin and I attacked the people who have said that Nicole was afraid that Simpson was going to killer her? We have asked point blank questions that you and other G's have not been able to answer.

I think it is a very to question some of Nicole's friends motives for speaking about Nicole's fear and Simpson's alleged abuse, only after she was dead. For while she was alive, these same friends still enjoyed the friendship of both the Simpsons. Some refusing to take sides and others were more concerned about losing OJ as a friend rather the Nicole. For instance, Kato. Nicole was so afraid that Simpson was going to kill her, he took OJ's offer of free room and board?

Faye, making claims that no one else made but wrote a book that not only kept her off the witness stand but painted a very ugly picture of Nicole and her habits toward the end of her life.

If Nicole was in fact fearful of her life, Dr. Forward was obligated by law to report this, she not only did not do this but she went public, broke her patient confidentiality as well as getting her license suspended. It has been pointed out that Nicole saw Dr. Forward twice, during her divorce proceedings and Nicole made no claims of abuse during the divorce. IMO, that is not attack on people, that is an attack perhaps how you wish or need to see these people.

Bottom line there is no proof of what any of these people have said only their claims that they knew this information but did nothing about it but make money off of it and try to get public sympathy after her death.

Kris Jenner was featured in the Shelia Weller book. She said that she was very afraid for Nicole at the end because of how Nicole was living were life. She made no mention of Nicole being afraid of Simpson. She also knew what Nicole was going through and what she was going to go through once her marriage ended, since she went through it. Well, not for very long because she married Bruce Jenner shortly after her divorce came through.

Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind.

Fair questions are not attacks on people, they are just that, fair questions.

Perhaps you should stop attacking people who refuse to believe everything that has been said by people who also have a motive to lie or stand to gain more from them.

fgump2

Mrs Jenner made up a bunch of lies and sold her story to a rag.Just like Fay and the others. All of the bit players found something to say to so they could sell it.

What Nicole may have thought or what she may have written in her diary has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether oj killed her or not.In a court of law one cannot be convicted based on what a victim may have thought someone was going to do to them or what some other people think the victim thought. You continue to use this nonsense as proof of something when in fact it is proof of nothing but people talking for attention.

OJ was examined by the court professional. every aspect of his life before the social worker, the childrens lawyer and the judge said oj should have the children.Any one else giving opposite opinions if just making noise with words. It means nothing.imo

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212304]I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

fgump2,

How have Martin and I attacked the people who have said that Nicole was afraid that Simpson was going to killer her? We have asked point blank questions that you and other G's have not been able to answer. Could you describe the 2 or 3 most important unanswered questions?
I think it is a very to question some of Nicole's friends motives for speaking about Nicole's fear and Simpson's alleged abuse, only after she was dead. For while she was alive, these same friends still enjoyed the friendship of both the Simpsons. Some refusing to take sides and others were more concerned about losing OJ as a friend rather the Nicole. For instance, Kato. Nicole was so afraid that Simpson was going to kill her, he took OJ's offer of free room and board?

Faye, making claims that no one else made but wrote a book that not only kept her off the witness stand but painted a very ugly picture of Nicole and her habits toward the end of her life.

If Nicole was in fact fearful of her life, Dr. Forward was obligated by law to report this, she not only did not do this but she went public, broke her patient confidentiality as well as getting her license suspended. It has been pointed out that Nicole saw Dr. Forward twice, during her divorce proceedings and Nicole made no claims of abuse during the divorce. IMO, that is not attack on people, that is an attack perhaps how you wish or need to see these people.

Bottom line there is no proof of what any of these people have said only their claims that they knew this information but did nothing about it but make money off of it and try to get public sympathy after her death.

Kris Jenner was featured in the Shelia Weller book. She said that she was very afraid for Nicole at the end because of how Nicole was living were life. She made no mention of Nicole being afraid of Simpson. She also knew what Nicole was going through and what she was going to go through once her marriage ended, since she went through it. Well, not for very long because she married Bruce Jenner shortly after her divorce came through.

Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind. Since I haven't read most of Nicole's diary, I can't comment on it. I imagine a lot of diaries contain things that are misleading. I don't recall rejecting any of it, but no source is 100% infallible.

Fair questions are not attacks on people, they are just that, fair questions. Does that include my questions of you and other NGs?

Perhaps you should stop attacking people who refuse to believe everything that has been said by people who also have a motive to lie or stand to gain more from them.
You can write that I am attacking people, and I suppose I am; but you should take a look at what you have written. Could you describe to me how you decide when people are attacking and when they are crticizing or disagreeing?

I haven't read the book by Sheilia W., but in Petrocelli's book he quotes Kris Jenner as saying that Nicole was afraid of Simpson.

As for Dr. Forward, do you have a record of what Nicole talked about to her? It is possible that she thought that Nicole was making it up at the time, and realized her mistake later. I don't claim to understand either the California therapist laws, or Susan Forward's behavior.To me the more witnesses you have about something, in this case Nicole's fear of Orenthal, the more reliable the testimony becomes. I realize there are cases in which it is logical to reject the testsimony of a lot of witnesses.

Simpson regularly denied hitting Nicole, and yet there was abundant evidence that he did. According to Petrocelli, a close friend of Nicole, Linda Schulman, said that Nicole showed her bruises and told her that he hit her with a winde bottle. Wayne Hughes, a friend who was closer to Orenthal than he was to Nicole, said that Orenthal once admitted that he caught Nicole "with too much backhand".

Showing that Orenthal beat Nicole, and then lied about it isn't the same as showing that he killed her, or even that she was afraid of him, but it points in the same direction. What kind of a character reference is it that Orenthal would beat her repeatidly, and then lie about it? Less than a week after her death, he wrote a farewell note about how he "felt like an abused spouse", but not a word of remorse about how he treated Nicole. That shows a lot about his moral character. Less than 2 weeks before her death he made a job about "hitting the wife" on an exercise video.

I think there were other people who also knew that either Nicole was afraid of Orenthal or that he beat her. Some of these people may have been unsure of what to do, they had problems of their own, and limited resources as well.

D'Anne LeBon was another person who said that Nicole predicted that Orenthal would kill her. Exactly what do you think she should have done to prevent it? She probably had small fraction of the wealth that Orenthal had.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212326]

fgump2

Mrs Jenner made up a bunch of lies and sold her story to a rag.Just like Fay and the others. All of the bit players found something to say to so they could sell it. Do you have any evidence that it was lies?
What Nicole may have thought or what she may have written in her diary has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether oj killed her or not. In a court of law one cannot be convicted based on what a victim may have thought someone was going to do to them or what some other people think the victim thought. You continue to use this nonsense as proof of something when in fact it is proof of nothing but people talking for attention. I don't claimn it is proof. I claim it is a strong indication that he did. In the US, in most states (maybe all) that evidence isn't admissable in criminal cours of law. I think one state might have changed this. I am not arguing about what the law should be. I am merely pointing out that there are a lot of coincidences that we have to buy into to think that Orenthal didn't kill her. As I have written before, there are just too many coincidences to think that Orenthal is innocent.
OJ was examined by the court professional. every aspect of his life before the social worker, the childrens lawyer and the judge said oj should have the children.Any one else giving opposite opinions if just making noise with words. It means nothing.imo. Judges, like the rest of the human race are fallible

Am I making noise with words when I write about his drug involvement, or his record of violence against Nicole?

You may think it is a nonsense argument about Nicole predicting the murder. But look at it from this point of view. Suppose you know a person who lives in a low crime area who has told you that she fears another person will kill her. Suppose that then this person is killed in the manner that they predicted. What would you think? I would say the police should do some serious checking even if there is a few 10 minute time line descrpancies in the police killing theory, or if 5 or 6 people failed to notice cuts or bandages on his hands.

The word nonsense is inflammatory. Not good to use if you are trying to change someone's mind.

[fgump2]

Again you are wrong, You have your sweat suite and video mixed up.

Mixed up with what?

[fgump2]

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.
One statistic I would like to see is what portion of all throat slashings are because of a romantic relationship gone bad. Another related statistic would be on the breakdown of motives in which a person was killed by repeated and excessive slashes to the throat. I thought I read somewhere that it is something like 99.9% romance gone bad. This last bread down would be hard to find because a lot of PD's (and autopsies) probably don't record whether the slashing was excessive. John Douglas of the FBI wrote that almost stabbing deaths in which there was excessive slashing are a result of romance gone bad.

[GreenIce]

You may think he go the message loud and clear, but I disagree. About 2 weeks before the killins Simpson made an exercise video, and made a joke about hitting "the wife". It is ironic that some think he may have killed Nicole while wearing the sweat suit he used while making the video.

fgump2,

Mr. Simpson's comments in the video were in poor taste. They were not indicative of any future plans to kill Nicole. When that tape was rolled the first time, no one in the court room got it---which is why it was played a few more times. It was a comment that was in poor taste and that was it.

There is no proof that the killer, regardless of who it is, was wearing a sweat suit.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9212334]

Am I making noise with words when I write about his drug involvement, or his record of violence against Nicole?

You may think it is a nonsense argument about Nicole predicting the murder. But look at it from this point of view. Suppose you know a person who lives in a low crime area who has told you that she fears another person will kill her. Suppose that then this person is killed in the manner that they predicted. What would you think? I would say the police should do some serious checking even if there is a few 10 minute time line descrpancies in the police killing theory, or if 5 or 6 people failed to notice cuts or bandages on his hands.

The word nonsense is inflammatory. Not good to use if you are trying to change someone's mind.

Fgump2,

I am not exactly sure what you did but I did not write that post. I know it looks like that but some how you got my name on it. I did not write that post.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9212334]

Am I making noise with words when I write about his drug involvement, or his record of violence against Nicole?

You may think it is a nonsense argument about Nicole predicting the murder. But look at it from this point of view. Suppose you know a person who lives in a low crime area who has told you that she fears another person will kill her. Suppose that then this person is killed in the manner that they predicted. What would you think? I would say the police should do some serious checking even if there is a few 10 minute time line descrpancies in the police killing theory, or if 5 or 6 people failed to notice cuts or bandages on his hands.

The word nonsense is inflammatory. Not good to use if you are trying to change someone's mind.


fgump2,

There has been no proof OJ Simpson's drug abuse. That was a said by Faye Resnick and it was never proved or even investigated by the LAPD. There have been rumors that Simpson was being pressured to get involved in the drug trade and that a major drug dealer spent 10 years or so in jail and was released right before the murders and has since gone very far underground. Now if this is true, then is more likely that Nicole was killed because he refused to get involved----which means Simpson did not kill Nicole. Having pot in your system is not proof of a hard core drug addiction or involvement in the drug trade.

The problem with Nicole's "predictions" is that we don't know the whole context of the conversations and threatening to "kill" of a loved one is often said and it is not meant that way. CR did not take these words to mean that the act of murder was going to be committed. For a person to say that someone, like a mom or dad or a spouse will "kill" them if they do something or get caught doing something, does not always mean just that.

And again, I can't stress enough, the people who have made this claim that it was a serious threat, continued to enjoy the benefits of being friends of the Simpsons and it appears if some of these friends were forced to pick between OJ and Nicole, they would have picked OJ. So again, their claims are suspect, IMO.

The timeline is essential and the DA's did not have 10 minutes to play with regardless of what timeline they went with. You have to consider why the DA's came up with the 10:15 p.m. timeline and why they refused to abandon it until closing arguments. They insisted on using a dog for their witness.

I have always posted that Sydney Simpson is the key timeline witness. Obviously her testimony would have destroyed the DA's case which is why she was never allowed to testify. Had Sydney had the right timeline, the Browns would have insisted that she would have testified, IMO.

In regards to the people who "missed" the cut on OJ's hand. Bottom line, the cut the LAPD insisted left the blood drops at Bundy was not there because it was not seen by witness who were looking at his hands. That wound, according the LAPD would have been impossible to miss. Also, you forget there is also demeanor evidence. OJ Simpson was not acting strange, he was acting as he was seen to be in public.

To believe that Simpson, who made all the way to Chicago without anyone seeing the cut on his knuckle would suddenly be worried about it that he would break a glass and 'trace' the wound to make it appear fresh is pure nonsense, IMO.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212339]

Fgump2,

I am not exactly sure what you did but I did not write that post. I know it looks like that but some how you got my name on it. I did not write that post.
You are correct. I got it confused with Martin. Still, some of your remarks are just as bad: Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind. What is it I need to make up my mind about?
Most people on this board, me included, are too emphatic and insulting at times.
To get another criticism of Martin, or maybe you. First of all any ruling a judge makes, whether Ito, Fujisaki, or anyone else is fallible. Martin wrote that the only relevant opinion of Orenthal's performance as a father was the one in the child custody case. I disagree. I think the man is a sociopath and was a heavy user of drugs.

Also Martin wrote that Faerstein made an evaluation of Orenthal without talking to him. I don't think that is true. He received a hefty payment from the Simpson defense camp, so he probably did talk to Simpson. I don't vouch for the man's compentence, just as I don't vouch for the absolute honesty of the friends of Nicole who said she thought he would kill her.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212326]
You can write that I am attacking people, and I suppose I am; but you should take a look at what you have written. Could you describe to me how you decide when people are attacking and when they are crticizing or disagreeing?

I haven't read the book by Sheilia W., but in Petrocelli's book he quotes Kris Jenner as saying that Nicole was afraid of Simpson.

As for Dr. Forward, do you have a record of what Nicole talked about to her? It is possible that she thought that Nicole was making it up at the time, and realized her mistake later. I don't claim to understand either the California therapist laws, or Susan Forward's behavior.To me the more witnesses you have about something, in this case Nicole's fear of Orenthal, the more reliable the testimony becomes. I realize there are cases in which it is logical to reject the testsimony of a lot of witnesses.

Simpson regularly denied hitting Nicole, and yet there was abundant evidence that he did. According to Petrocelli, a close friend of Nicole, Linda Schulman, said that Nicole showed her bruises and told her that he hit her with a winde bottle. Wayne Hughes, a friend who was closer to Orenthal than he was to Nicole, said that Orenthal once admitted that he caught Nicole "with too much backhand".

Showing that Orenthal beat Nicole, and then lied about it isn't the same as showing that he killed her, or even that she was afraid of him, but it points in the same direction. What kind of a character reference is it that Orenthal would beat her repeatidly, and then lie about it? Less than a week after her death, he wrote a farewell note about how he "felt like an abused spouse", but not a word of remorse about how he treated Nicole. That shows a lot about his moral character. Less than 2 weeks before her death he made a job about "hitting the wife" on an exercise video.

I think there were other people who also knew that either Nicole was afraid of Orenthal or that he beat her. Some of these people may have been unsure of what to do, they had problems of their own, and limited resources as well.

D'Anne LeBon was another person who said that Nicole predicted that Orenthal would kill her. Exactly what do you think she should have done to prevent it? She probably had small fraction of the wealth that Orenthal had.

fgump2,

Where were all these friends in the criminal trial? Sheila Weller's book was written before the trial. Petrocelli's book was written after two trials and he knew he could write a mountain of crap and certain people would feast on it like it was steak dinner. He could have called Gumby and Pokey to the stand and they would have been expert witness to many of the G nation.

If what you say is true of Dr. Forward, then she should have manned up and admitted she thought Nicole was lying and only realized that she was not after she was murdered. However, Dr. Forward knew the laws of her profession. She broke them, IMO, to promote her book. I wonder if she went to the police first or the media first?

The laws are simple to understand. If Dr. Forward or any shrink felt that Nicole was in true fear of her life, she had to report it as well as warn Nicole. The same is true of the shrinks that OJ saw, if their findings were that he was going to kill Nicole or that her life was danger, they were obligated to report it.

The shrinks Nicole saw for a few years never came forward. Petrocelli did not use any of them of the civil trial.

There is evidence that Nicole was afraid and maybe even afraid for her life, but it wasn't because of OJ Simpson. We know she was being followed, we know that she was receiving obscene phone call, we know that she asked not only Simpson but others to drive by to check on her and the kids.

We know that she was scared of some of Faye's friends. We know that she asked Faye to leave her home 3 or 4 days before her murder. We know that Faye warned her that they were both in danager and begged her to leave the country with her--this was not over OJ Simpson. Faye had no fear of Simpson. She just twisted her story again. Faye was out of her mind with fear, but again, it had nothing to do with OJ Simpson doing her harm. IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212352]
You are correct. I got it confused with Martin. Still, some of your remarks are just as bad: Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind. What is it I need to make up my mind about?
Most people on this board, me included, are too emphatic and insulting at times.
To get another criticism of Martin, or maybe you. First of all any ruling a judge makes, whether Ito, Fujisaki, or anyone else is fallible. Martin wrote that the only relevant opinion of Orenthal's performance as a father was the one in the child custody case. I disagree. I think the man is a sociopath and was a heavy user of drugs.

Also Martin wrote that Faerstein made an evaluation of Orenthal without talking to him. I don't think that is true. He received a hefty payment from the Simpson defense camp, so he probably did talk to Simpson. I don't vouch for the man's compentence, just as I don't vouch for the absolute honesty of the friends of Nicole who said she thought he would kill her.

fgump2,

You need to make up your mind, either you accept all of Nicole's words and diary as the truth or you reject it. You can't say that she would tell the truth some of the time and then would lie other times. Example, she told several people that Simpson only hit her once. She was taped saying that it only happened once, and she didn't know she was being taped. Yet, G's dismiss this as Nicole lying. She also said that her friends would sell her out, yet she is also lying about this? I have seen no proof that Nicole always kept a diary and if she did, when did she start it and what were the full contents of the diary?

If Dr. Farenstein made the comments regarding Simpson, then he should have lost his license or been suspended. I don't remember reading anything about this but if he was hired by Simpson, then his report should never had made it into the public domain.

You have no proof of Simpson's drug use, you have rumour. You do have proof of Faye's heavy drug use, but you dismiss that. Your claims regarding Simpson have been proven not to be true. The fact that he was awarded custody of his children while being the most hated man in US speaks volumes. I am sure the judge and the legal system were hoping to find anything they could to ensure the kids stayed with the Browns. They found nothing.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212339]


fgump2,

There has been no proof OJ Simpson's drug abuse. That was a said by Faye Resnick and it was never proved or even investigated by the LAPD. There have been rumors that Simpson was being pressured to get involved in the drug trade and that a major drug dealer spent 10 years or so in jail and was released right before the murders and has since gone very far underground. Now if this is true, then is more likely that Nicole was killed because he refused to get involved----which means Simpson did not kill Nicole. Having pot in your system is not proof of a hard core drug addiction or involvement in the drug trade. It was also said by Jim Brown.

The problem with Nicole's "predictions" is that we don't know the whole context of the conversations and threatening to "kill" of a loved one is often said and it is not meant that way. CR did not take these words to mean that the act of murder was going to be committed. For a person to say that someone, like a mom or dad or a spouse will "kill" them if they do something or get caught doing something, does not always mean just that. I think most people know the difference between a mataphor and a death fear. For example there is a difference between someone saying "my boss/husband/wife will kill me if do/fail to do ---". To assume that the various witnesses to Nicole's fears couldn't make this distinciton is quite a stretch?

And again, I can't stress enough, the people who have made this claim that it was a serious threat, continued to enjoy the benefits of being friends of the Simpsons and it appears if some of these friends were forced to pick between OJ and Nicole, they would have picked OJ. So again, their claims are suspect, IMO. I disagree. Money motivates people more than they like to admit, and sometimes friendships with celebreties is sometimes an improper motivation. To me if more than 3 or 4 people, some of whom probably didn't know each other, come up with the same story, we should look at the possibility that they might be correct.

The timeline is essential and the DA's did not have 10 minutes to play with regardless of what timeline they went with. You have to consider why the DA's came up with the 10:15 p.m. timeline and why they refused to abandon it until closing arguments. They insisted on using a dog for their witness. Do you really think that the witnesses's memory of the time line is going to be accurte to 5 minutes or less. Most of them didn't realize the times of night were important till at least 12 hours later, quite possibly some more than 24 hours later. I know I have guessed the at the time of day/night and then looked at a clock and realized that I was off by a lot more than 10 minutes. As for using the barking of a dog as a witness. I know of at least one other time estimates giving similar estimates: Ron told friends he would meet them at a bar at a certain time, and he was usually punctual. Retracing his trip gave an estimate of about the same time.

I have always posted that Sydney Simpson is the key timeline witness. Obviously her testimony would have destroyed the DA's case which is why she was never allowed to testify. Had Sydney had the right timeline, the Browns would have insisted that she would have testified, IMO. I disagree on this one. You seem to think you know what Sidney said, and what the Brown's thought. How do you know that? In any case Sydney's remembered timeline is subject to the same errors as all human memory.

In regards to the people who "missed" the cut on OJ's hand. Bottom line, the cut the LAPD insisted left the blood drops at Bundy was not there because it was not seen by witness who were looking at his hands. That wound, according the LAPD would have been impossible to miss. Also, you forget there is also demeanor evidence. OJ Simpson was not acting strange, he was acting as he was seen to be in public.

To believe that Simpson, who made all the way to Chicago without anyone seeing the cut on his knuckle would suddenly be worried about it that he would break a glass and 'trace' the wound to make it appear fresh is pure nonsense, IMO.
Am I hallucinating, or do you use the word nonsense to express disagreement?

As for Simpson's demeanor, one of the psychologists who consulted with Petrocelli said:" The popular image of a man who has just killed his wife as a sweating, wild eyed guy, but that turns out not to be the case". Based on his conversations with and examination of spousal killers, Dr. Dutton found them to be relativley tension free after the act, which they describe as extremely cathartic, and a great release of tension. Another thing is that at least one of the people he worked with at Hertz said that even when Simpson was upset, he had the ability to tune out his problems and appear to be calm and friendly

As for people not remembering a cut or problem with Simpson's left hand. I repeat this quote from an article on vision: Our brain is contantly trying to construct meaningful narratives about what we see. Things that don't quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interests are wiped wholesale from our consciousness.

In spite of this I think that the testimony of witnesses who claimed that they saw no problems with his hands does help him. I just don't regard it as conclusive.
I have read things on forensic memory which said the same thing in a different manner. Almost everyone over estimates the accuracy of their own memory. I thought the DAs in the SImpson case should have gotten a forensic memory expert to shoot holes in the time line memories, and some of the other memories as well.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212354]
Am I hallucinating, or do you use the word nonsense to express disagreement?

As for Simpson's demeanor, one of the psychologists who consulted with Petrocelli said:" The popular image of a man who has just killed his wife as a sweating, wild eyed guy, but that turns out not to be the case". Based on his conversations with and examination of spousal killers, Dr. Dutton found them to be relativley tension free after the act, which they describe as extremely cathartic, and a great release of tension. Another thing is that at least one of the people he worked with at Hertz said that even when Simpson was upset, he had the ability to tune out his problems and appear to be calm and friendly

As for people not remembering a cut or problem with Simpson's left hand. I repeat this quote from an article on vision: Our brain is contantly trying to construct meaningful narratives about what we see. Things that don't quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interests are wiped wholesale from our consciousness.

In spite of this I think that the testimony of witnesses who claimed that they saw no problems with his hands does help him. I just don't regard it as conclusive.
I have read things on forensic memory which said the same thing in a different manner. Almost everyone over estimates the accuracy of their own memory. I thought the DAs in the SImpson case should have gotten a forensic memory expert to shoot holes in the time line memories, and some of the other memories as well.

fgump2,

No, I did use the word nonsense because IMO, it more then polite then other words to use to describe any person who believes that Simpson was cut on the knuckle and only becamed concerned about it when he got to Chicago.

I will give you that not every killer acts the same. I will also concede that any person can snap and kill someone. However, Mr. Simpson was the most hated man America and whenever the G Nation had difficult questions to answer, they were always able to come up with an "expert" who would say just what they wanted to hear. Do you think Petrocelli would write in his book about an expert who did not believe Simpson killed Ron and Nicole and his demeanor afterwards was proof of this?

Many celebrites, like "normal" people have a professional face which does indicate any home trouble or personal issues. He is no different then you and me in that regard. However, killing someone is not a "normal" personal issue or problem. There is no way to put that a place where you just won't think about it until you have to or when you get home.

I disagree with you about it being conclusive about people not seeing the cut on Simpson's knuckle. The only reason why is because the LAPD insisted that the blood left at the scene came from this cut and this cut only. The cut on his knuckle could not have been hidden. Also, the defense produced a witness who said the cut was consistant with it being from a shard of glass.

I don't know if the DA's ever approached this subject either, on what they thought he cut it on. I gave up after their "tracing" theory.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .As for people not remembering a cut or problem with Simpson's left hand. I repeat this quote from an article on vision: Our brain is contantly trying to construct meaningful narratives about what we see. Things that don't quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interests are wiped wholesale from our consciousness.

In spite of this I think that the testimony of witnesses who claimed that they saw no problems with his hands does help him. I just don't regard it as conclusive.
I have read things on forensic memory which said the same thing in a different manner. Almost everyone over estimates the accuracy of their own memory. I thought the DAs in the SImpson case should have gotten a forensic memory expert to shoot holes in the time line memories, and some of the other memories as well.

in fact, the witnesses did not testify that they did not see any cuts on orenthal's hands and as tv has pointed out, even jason testified that he did not see any cuts on orenthal's hands and he was looking for something -- the problem with jason's testimony is that by the time he saw orenthal, we know as a fact that orenthal had the big cut on his finger.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

My comments on Sydney are simple. She gave a statement to the police and the only parts of that statement that were confirmed was that she heard her mother fight and crying on the telephone that night and it was with her mother's best friend. We don't know if this all happened in one phone call or two. Detective Lange confirmed this while on the stand but a side bar was called and it was dropped.

We also know that Sydney had a friend who was suppose to have spent the night but was picked up by her parents because they had a change of plans.

While the coroner gave a three hour window of when the murders took place, between 9 and 12, we know that is impossible because it was established that Nicole was alive at least until 10:30 p.m. that night. We also know the medical examiner said the murders more then likely had the murders happening closer to or after 11:00 p.m.

We know the murders happened after the kids fell asleep that night. Asking Sydney what time she went to bed is an obvious question. Just like it was an obvious question to ask her for her father's whereabouts as well as sister's phone number.

It was the DA's who needed to prove the murders happened before Simpson left for his trip. They insisted on the timeline and regardless of what timeline you use, IMO, there still was not enough time for Simspon to have committed the crimes, take his time at the murder scene, drive to Rockingham, make his jaunt around his property, get into his house, shower and appear completely normal in a 20 minute time frame. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Have you ever read the police dispatcher's testimony regarding the 1989 incident? It appears to me that quite a few things are missing. Like the phone call came from Rockingham, but they don't know which phone line it came from or who made the call.

She says she heard a woman being being slapped. From one slap, she upgraded it to a woman being beaten? Who made that phone call? Nicole was not shy about calling the cops. OJ Simpson can't be heard, which I find that impossible to believe that he would be able to keep his mouth closed for any length of time.

OJ's maid at the time never testified in either trial. I think she did give a deposition but I have never been able to find it.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

She says she heard a woman being being slapped. From one slap, she upgraded it to a woman being beaten?


I think you are wrong when you characterize it as one slap, but how many times does a man need to slap a woman before you consider it violence?

[GreenIce]

I think you are wrong when you characterize it as one slap, but how many times does a man need to slap a woman before you consider it violence?

SOC,

I will go back and re-read the testimony. However, to answer your question, how many times did Nicole need to "slap" the maid before you consider it violence?

From the tesitmony of Sharon Gilbert: On Direct by Mr. Darden

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING ELSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR?

A: I HEARD SOMEONE BEING HIT.

Q: YOU HEARD A NOISE THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH SOMEONE BEING HIT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION?

A: THAT IS WHEN I WENT BACK AND UPDATED IT TO -- IN THE FACT THAT I HEARD A FEMALE SCREAMING AND THEN I HEARD WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A SLAP. I WENT BACK AND UPDATED IT AS A FEMALE BEING BEATEN AT THE LOCATION, TO GIVE THE RESPONDING OFFICER AN INDICATION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, THAT IT WAS NO LONGER AN UNKNOWN TROUBLE.

Later on Direct:
Q: AND HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE 911 CALL YOU RECEIVED AT 3:58 IN THE MORNING ON JANUARY 1, 1989?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU LISTENED TO THAT TAPE?

A: APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AND A HALF AGO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THE TAPE A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, COULD YOU HEAR SLAPS OR STRIKES?

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE, YOUR HONOR, AS CONCLUSIONARY IN FORM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I COULD IN REMEMBERING THE CALL. I COULD DETERMINE AFTER THE FIRST SCREAM, THEN I HEARD SOMEONE BEING HIT.

It appears to me that witness was asked if she heard more then one slap and she clearly her answer is that she heard one slap.

[GreenIce]

The dispatcher is never asked if she hears the woman cry out for help, she hears screams, but apparently she can't understand anything else. Who called 911 if it wasn't Nicole? And if was Nicole, why wouldn't she talk to the dispatcher or scream, "help, police!".

[martin II]

Martin,

Have you ever read the police dispatcher's testimony regarding the 1989 incident? It appears to me that quite a few things are missing. Like the phone call came from Rockingham, but they don't know which phone line it came from or who made the call.

She says she heard a woman being being slapped. From one slap, she upgraded it to a woman being beaten? Who made that phone call? Nicole was not shy about calling the cops. OJ Simpson can't be heard, which I find that impossible to believe that he would be able to keep his mouth closed for any length of time.

OJ's maid at the time never testified in either trial. I think she did give a deposition but I have never been able to find it.


i think it was in the maids room.Nicole walked in and just slapped her face. the maid called 911,nicole came to the kitchen asnd announced 'I SLAPPED HER ' oj yells what. went to maid nicole follows.
maid had called 911 and dropped the phone to defend herself and the operator heard the voices.

[GreenIce]

Q: Tell me.

A: She said that--This is after she had made up her mind she wouldn't do it. She said they were trying to get her to say all kinds of things, and she wouldn't do it, and they even had a psychologist that they tried to make her go to make her hate me," quote, unquote, "hate me," and that she was sick of it all.

Q: Who was the psychologist?

A: Susan Ford.

Q: Did Nicole go to her?

A: I don't know, but in the things that I've read since I was in jail, yes.

Q: Did Nicole tell you that she actually went to this psychologist and said--told her stories that were not true about abuse?

A: No. She told me that--she said that this lady was trying to make-- this lady was crazy. I believe she even wrote it down, and I believe it's in discovery, that this woman is crazy. "She's trying--her words to me, "She's trying to make me hate you, and I'm not gonna go to her anymore."

Q: Did Nicole tell you that she had in fact seen this psychologist at least once?

A: I'm not sure if she said at least once. She just said that they had her going to this psychologist who was crazy.

Q: Did she tell you that she had told this psychologist fabricated stories about abuse?

A: I don't think she got into that about the psychologist. She was just telling me in general that that's what they were trying to get her to do, and she wouldn't testify to it.

Q: : Did Nicole tell you--Withdrawn. Mr. Simpson, when did you first find out from Nicole that she was involved in inventing these stories of abuse?

A: Around I believe it was May or June--middle of Mayor June of '92.

[GreenIce]

i think it was in the maids room.Nicole walked in and just slapped her face. the maid called 911,nicole came to the kitchen asnd announced 'I SLAPPED HER ' oj yells what. went to maid nicole follows.
maid had called 911 and dropped the phone to defend herself and the operator heard the voices.

Martin,

OJ locks Nicole out of the bedroom. Nicole gets a key and gets back into the bedroom. OJ gets Nicole out of the room the second time.

Nicole leaves the house, goes to the maid's room and slaps the maid. The maid calls 911 and the slap the dispatcher heard was Michelle slapping Nicole?

The dispatcher never says she heard a male's voice. Or that heard more then one voice. It seems to me what ever she heard, OJ Simpson was not in that room.

[martin II]

Martin,

OJ locks Nicole out of the bedroom. Nicole gets a key and gets back into the bedroom. OJ gets Nicole out of the room the second time.

Nicole leaves the house, goes to the maid's room and slaps the maid. The maid calls 911 and the slap the dispatcher heard was Michelle slapping Nicole?

The dispatcher never says she heard a male's voice. Or that heard more then one voice. It seems to me what ever she heard, OJ Simpson was not in that room.

Thanks for the correction.
nicole slapped the maid another time.This does show a lot of agressive behavior on nicoles part. When oj asked her to leave why didn't she just leave rather than start a fight.I wonder how many other fights she started when she could not get her way.

[William Anthony]

William,

One of the risks that Darden took, IMO, just backfired on him and the state's case. The DA's never introduced to DV expert witness. Why Darden would bring up the fact the defense never called Dr. Lenore Walker to the stand never made any sense to me. What was he thinking? It was the DA's who were trying to prove this was DV murder.

Bottom line, the DA's motive of the murders was not supported and 1 incident in 17 years is not enough proof that this was a DV murder. Again, IMO, this motive and their sorry attempts to prove this motive really hurt them, IMO.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and I agree that the prosecution made collosal blunders.

[GreenIce]

Thanks for the correction.
nicole slapped the maid another time.This does show a lot of agressive behavior on nicoles part. When oj asked her to leave why didn't she just leave rather than start a fight.I wonder how many other fights she started when she could not get her way.

Martin,

I am not exactly sure who slapped who. However, it is clear that the dispatcher believes that Nicole was slapped once. The officer, also said that Nicole said that she was slapped once. However, this officer never asks a very obvious question, and that was drink involved. From both of OJ and Nicole, they both said they were very drunk and we know alcohol can fuel situations out of control.

I have no doubt that Nicole confronted Simpson on his womanizing. I can't say that I blame her for that. However, if she became physical toward him, then that is where the line must be drawn.

[GreenIce]

Desperate times call for desperate measures and I agree that the prosecution made collosal blunders.

William,

You know, maybe the collosal blunders were the only thing they had. Like you said, deperate times calls for desperate measures.

[William Anthony]

People who have studied violence against women say that wife abusers are often more angered by rejection than by the loss of the woman. I other words, if Nicole had been killed in a car wreck in say 1992 - 1994, he would have probably adjusted to it relatively quickly. He couldn't adjust to being rejected.

As for Gs never claiming to be fair - I won't answer that. I think you have a lot of growing up that you should be trying to do - writing hahahaha about situation involving murder, domestic violence, and a lot of bitterness by people not directly involved.

I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

Most people are not saints. Put anyone under a magnifying glass, and you will find something you don't like. It is a common practive to discredit the messanger if you don't like the message.

Would this be a practice to discredit the messengers because of the messages, "As for Gs never claiming to be fair - I won't answer that. I think you have a lot of growing up that you should be trying to do - writing hahahaha about situation involving murder, domestic violence, and a lot of bitterness by people not directly involved. I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth"?

[William Anthony]

I posted a while back that a psychiatrist, Saul Faerstein, wrote that SImpson was a selfish person more concerned with his popularity and future earnings than with either grief at Nicole's death, or the well being of Justin or Sydney.

I think the conclusion that Faerstein came to is a lot easier and simpler than the conclusion that Walker came to, that Simpson didn't have anti social personality disorder.

I think that Faerstein's conclusion were relatively straight forward. He probably came to that conclusion because of the relative amounts of time and emotion Simpson devoted to talking about his popularity and future earnings as opposed to his feelings about Sydney and Justin. I don't know why his report became public.

Anti social personality disorder is much more difficult to diagnose. Some psychotherapists who examined (i.e. talked with) Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald said he was an extreme example of anti social personality disorder, others denied it.

It would be interesting to know how Dr. Walker came to her conclusions

I think it depends on who one finds credible or when there is a tie, by the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, the tie went to Simpson.

[William Anthony]

You may think he go the message loud and clear, but I disagree. About 2 weeks before the killins Simpson made an exercise video, and made a joke about hitting "the wife". It is ironic that some think he may have killed Nicole while wearing the sweat suit he used while making the video.

Some find sinister motives in giving children candy, which they may or may not be correct, but the evidence of poisoned candy would be found. Where is the sweat suit allegedly worn by Simpson and how did the prosecution's failure to produce one impact their burden of proof?

[GreenIce]

Some find sinister motives in giving children candy, which they may or may not be correct, but the evidence of poisoned candy would be found. Where is the sweat suit allegedly worn by Simpson and how did the prosecution's failure to produce one impact their burden of proof?

William,

Welcome back!!!!

Do you know when Doug Deedrick testified those blue black fibers came from a sweat suit? I was positive the believed the came from the same piece cloth but I may be wrong.

[William Anthony]

William,

Welcome back!!!!

Do you know when Doug Deedrick testified those blue black fibers came from a sweat suit? I was positive the believed the came from the same piece cloth but I may be wrong.

No, I am not sure about DD's testimony and don't believe he was.:) Thank both you and Martin for my welcome backs.

[GreenIce]

I posted a while back that a psychiatrist, Saul Faerstein, wrote that SImpson was a selfish person more concerned with his popularity and future earnings than with either grief at Nicole's death, or the well being of Justin or Sydney.

Fgump2,

When did Dr. Faerstein talk to Simpson and when did he make these findings? Why was he brought into the case? Did he interview Simpson while he was preparing to be arrested? Did he speak to Simpson after he was in jail?

Are saying that OJ Simpson sent Sydney and Justin to Nicole's parents because he did not care about their well being? Are you saying that giving guardianship of his two minor children to Nicole's parents, even knowing they believed he killed their daughter was not done without any regard to their well being? Are you saying that Simpson's continued support check of $10,000.00 a month sent to the Browns was a sign that he did not care about the well being of his children?

What is this doctor's proof that Simpson did not care about the well being of his children? Simpson was a pitch man, he made a lot of money because of his image. He is not a stupid man, he knew that if his image was destroyed, he would not be able to make the money that he was accustomed to making and this would have a negative impact on how he would be able to support to support his family.

Are you saying that Mr. Simpson had to grief for Nicole on your terms or the doctor's terms? That in between the time of learning of Nicole's death and being arrested for her murdrers that he had more then enough time to grieve for Nicole in a manner that was acceptable, to who? You? Dr. Farenstein?

Bottom line from the moment Simpson realized that Nicole was murdered, he knew he was the number one suspect. Being handcuffed and listening to false media leaks regarding his as the prime suspect does not, IMO, lend a lot of time to greive for the loved one who has died. In fact, it is a well known fact, no matter how many people feel they are prepared for a loved one's death, there is no way to prepare this. Grief does not have a time limit on it and anger and feeling sorry for one's self is a big part of the process. IMO.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

When did Dr. Faerstein talk to Simpson and when did he make these findings? Why was he brought into the case? Did he interview Simpson while he was preparing to be arrested? Did he speak to Simpson after he was in jail?

Are saying that OJ Simpson sent Sydney and Justin to Nicole's parents because he did not care about their well being? Are you saying that giving guardianship of his two minor children to Nicole's parents, even knowing they believed he killed their daughter was not done without any regard to their well being? Are you saying that Simpson's continued support check of $10,000.00 a month sent to the Browns was a sign that he did not care about the well being of his children?

What is this doctor's proof that Simpson did not care about the well being of his children? Simpson was a pitch man, he made a lot of money because of his image. He is not a stupid man, he knew that if his image was destroyed, he would not be able to make the money that he was accustomed to making and this would have a negative impact on how he would be able to support to support his family.

Are you saying that Mr. Simpson had to grief for Nicole on your terms or the doctor's terms? That in between the time of learning of Nicole's death and being arrested for her murdrers that he had more then enough time to grieve for Nicole in a manner that was acceptable, to who? You? Dr. Farenstein?

Bottom line from the moment Simpson realized that Nicole was murdered, he knew he was the number one suspect. Being handcuffed and listening to false media leaks regarding his as the prime suspect does not, IMO, lend a lot of time to greive for the loved one who has died. In fact, it is a well known fact, no matter how many people feel they are prepared for a loved one's death, there is no way to prepare this. Grief does not have a time limit on it and anger and feeling sorry for one's self is a big part of the process. IMO.

fgump2

OJ had good work situations that caused him to be out of town a lot.he had a big house, two kids and a wife to support.He was not able to be home at 5pm for dinner every day. In the 17 years Nicole only spent money being mrs oj simpson she never worked to earn a penny.Everything depended on oj. So
Farenstein just didn't know what he was talking about.

Specfically what did the Dr use to come to the conclusion that oj did not care for his kids.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am not exactly sure who slapped who. However, it is clear that the dispatcher believes that Nicole was slapped once. The officer, also said that Nicole said that she was slapped once. However, this officer never asks a very obvious question, and that was drink involved. From both of OJ and Nicole, they both said they were very drunk and we know alcohol can fuel situations out of control.

I have no doubt that Nicole confronted Simpson on his womanizing. I can't say that I blame her for that. However, if she became physical toward him, then that is where the line must be drawn.

Nicole gave as good as she got.She nerver backed away from a argument or a fight.

[socaldiva]

*snip*,

I will go back and re-read the testimony. However, to answer your question, how many times did Nicole need to "slap" the maid before you consider it violence?



Good grief, your post does not prove that Nicole was "only" slapped once. It says that the dispatcher heard one slap. I'm sick & tired of you & others making Nicole out to be the aggressor. It's pathetic. :no:

[weezer]

Good grief, your post does not prove that Nicole was "only" slapped once. It says that the dispatcher heard one slap. I'm sick & tired of you & others making Nicole out to be the aggressor. It's pathetic. :no:

is this the maid whose room Nicole ran to the night she was being beat by orenthal and the POS maid did nothing to help. in fact, is this the same maid that tried to pull her out of the backseat of the police cruiser?

[socaldiva]

is this the maid whose room Nicole ran to the night she was being beat by orenthal and the POS maid did nothing to help. in fact, is this the same maid that tried to pull her out of the backseat of the police cruiser?

Good points! Seems like that woman had no character either & would do whatever it took to suck up to Orenthal, regardless of whether or not it was immoral & left Nicole in danger.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212354]
Am I hallucinating, or do you use the word nonsense to express disagreement?

As for Simpson's demeanor, one of the psychologists who consulted with Petrocelli said:" The popular image of a man who has just killed his wife as a sweating, wild eyed guy, but that turns out not to be the case". Based on his conversations with and examination of spousal killers, Dr. Dutton found them to be relativley tension free after the act, which they describe as extremely cathartic, and a great release of tension. Another thing is that at least one of the people he worked with at Hertz said that even when Simpson was upset, he had the ability to tune out his problems and appear to be calm and friendly

As for people not remembering a cut or problem with Simpson's left hand. I repeat this quote from an article on vision: Our brain is contantly trying to construct meaningful narratives about what we see. Things that don't quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interests are wiped wholesale from our consciousness.

In spite of this I think that the testimony of witnesses who claimed that they saw no problems with his hands does help him. I just don't regard it as conclusive.
I have read things on forensic memory which said the same thing in a different manner. Almost everyone over estimates the accuracy of their own memory. I thought the DAs in the SImpson case should have gotten a forensic memory expert to shoot holes in the time line memories, and some of the other memories as well.


fgump2

To be fair you need to post Dr F study so we can see how he came to the conclusions you say he came to. making wild statements with nothing to back up or explain does nopt help people to believe what you say.

[socaldiva]

It is truely pathetic to put the blame on Nicole and not blame O.J. who not only beat her numerous times but nearly cut her fricking head off. The cutting her fricking head off was said on HBO by a black juror in the civil case.

I know. I bet if O.J. read this board he would laugh his head off reading about
people sticking up for him & thinking he's innocent even though theres a mountain of evidence to prove he's a killer.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

making wild statements with nothing to back up or explain does nopt help people to believe what you say.

Perhaps you should take your own advice ;)

[martin II]

People who have studied violence against women say that wife abusers are often more angered by rejection than by the loss of the woman. I other words, if Nicole had been killed in a car wreck in say 1992 - 1994, he would have probably adjusted to it relatively quickly. He couldn't adjust to being rejected.

As for Gs never claiming to be fair - I won't answer that. I think you have a lot of growing up that you should be trying to do - writing hahahaha about situation involving murder, domestic violence, and a lot of bitterness by people not directly involved.

I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

Most people are not saints. Put anyone under a magnifying glass, and you will find something you don't like. It is a common practive to discredit the messanger if you don't like the message.

I am saying the same thing about you as you constantly attack Dr Lee,Cochran and the balance of the defense team.you don't like the message.
The haha was for the prosecution not proving their case.
You have the same problem as the prosecution.You cannot prove that oj was
physically in the walkway and how the two bags got on the porch if oj did not come out and place them there.But as you argue your point you ignore what i have posted above and talk about abuse.

Rejection and loosing a person seems to be the same. You also ignore the facts that oj told all his frienbds and nicole that he had moved on and left her some time before she was killed.That you don't want to hear.
I will ignore your personal comment as it sounds like something a teenager would say.

Most of your post are about personal evaluations of Lee,Cochran and other defense lawyers as if you are qualified to evaluate behavior. The case was about evidence not about morality.That may be why you seem to be unaware of the facts of the trial.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
You also ignore the facts that oj told all his frienbds and nicole that he had moved on and left her some time before she was killed.

You are wrong. OJ did not leave her some time before she was killed, she dumped him. That is a fact, yet you continue to ignore it.

[martin II]

Perhaps you should take your own advice ;)

You still don't have a clue.

[weezer]

You are wrong. OJ did not leave her some time before she was killed, she dumped him. That is a fact, yet you continue to ignore it.

the continued assessertion by the NG's that orenthal had moved on is actually kind of funny when you consider that orenthal wanted to commit suicide over her death:

". . .I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much. . ."

[socaldiva]

You still don't have a clue.


That's hysterical coming from you :tongue: Thanks for the laugh :D

[socaldiva]

the continued assessertion by the NG's that orenthal had moved on is actually kind of funny when you consider that orenthal wanted to commit suicide over her death:

". . .I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much. . ."

Especially considering their beloved Lenore Walker said that OJ told her he received the calls from his message center on the night of the murders, yet they continue to argue that he didn't get them. Who's the liar? Walker or Simpson?

[weezer]

Especially considering their beloved Lenore Walker said that OJ told her he received the calls from his message center on the night of the murders, yet they continue to argue that he didn't get them. Who's the liar? Walker or Simpson?

are you daft? walker of course :tongue:

[socaldiva]

are you daft? walker of course :tongue:

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking :D

[William Anthony]

Good points! Seems like that woman had no character either & would do whatever it took to suck up to Orenthal, regardless of whether or not it was immoral & left Nicole in danger.

Spousal abuse does not = murder and, if it did, who had the burden of proof?

[martin II]

Someone please tell me how in the name of common sense could an imprint made in the pavement YEARS before the murders have shown up in 'more than one place and on more than one item'? Good grief!!!

See Deedricks testimony and then read Lees testimony so you can know what was said in testimony

[William Anthony]

as I understand contracts/agreements, it takes an offer and an acceptance. ;)

There is a benefit to having studied law and I do need to amend my prior codicil to include the recantation of my agreement not to post to all those I have found obnoxious, smile, in order to make the unilateral K valid. In fact a codicil is not the proper vehicle and I have executed a new unilateral K, smile.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/unilateral-contract.htm

[martin II]

After 17 years togeather people can come to have deep love for each other and at the same time decide living togeather is not for either.Unless one does not understand how love works.People can love for many reasons as oj and Nicole did.

[martin II]

as I understand contracts/agreements, it takes an offer and an acceptance. ;)

Verbal agreements require paper follow up confirming the agreement.If not there is no agreement.

[William Anthony]

After 17 years togeather people can come to have deep love for each other and at the same time decide living togeather is not for either.Unless one does not understand how love works.People can love for many reasons as oj and Nicole did.

I am reminded of the words to a song.

"No words of consolation could male me love you less.
Don't try to spare my feelings
Just tell me that we through
And make it easy on yourself
Cause breaking up is so very hard to do..."

[William Anthony]

Verbal agreements require paper follow up confirming the agreement.If not there is no agreement.

I think you may be referring to the Restatement of Torts or the Uniform commercial Code on the sale of Goods over $500, IIRC. However, it is a wise practice to reduce everything to writing, IMHO.

[martin II]

I am reminded of the words to a song.

"No words of consolation could male me love you less.
Don't try to spare my feelings
Just tell me that we through
And make it easy on yourself
Cause breaking up is so very hard to do..."

Some may not have experienced true love to understand how oj could drop Nicole as his woman and still love her dearly in her death.

[William Anthony]

Some may not have experienced true love to understand how oj could drop Nicole as his woman and still love her dearly in her death.

Another very astute observation, as the termination of a relationship does not always mean a termination of love.

[GreenIce]

It is truely pathetic to put the blame on Nicole and not blame O.J. who not only beat her numerous times but nearly cut her fricking head off. The cutting her fricking head off was said on HBO by a black juror in the civil case.

Hipcheck,

So you are blaming OJ Simpson for Nicole hitting the maid?

You have yet to produce any testimony that Nicole was in fact beaten once, let alone twice. I have posted the testimony regarding one slap what was elevated to a beating. There is no proof of who was being slapped nor is their any proof of who did the slapping.

No where in the dispatcher's testimony does she say she heard the woman call out for help, no where does she testify that she heard a man's voice. We all know that OJ Simpson couldn't keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it. He rants and raves.

You really need to know your facts before you go off like that. The juror you are talking about is Deena Mullen and she is not black. She is Greek. Also, she is the same juror who said the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder that she believes Mark Fuhrman planted the glove.

So what do you think of your juror now who believe MF planted the glove?

[socaldiva]

Some may not have experienced true love to understand how oj could drop Nicole as his woman and still love her dearly in her death.

Oh yeah, "true love" that caused him to stalk, beat & kill her. Gimme a break!

[socaldiva]

After 17 years togeather people can come to have deep love for each other and at the same time decide living togeather is not for either.Unless one does not understand how love works.People can love for many reasons as oj and Nicole did.

Face it. Ultimately OJ was dumped. Nothing mutal about it.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

So you are blaming OJ Simpson for Nicole hitting the maid?

You have yet to produce any testimony that Nicole was in fact beaten once, let alone twice. I have posted the testimony regarding one slap what was elevated to a beating. There is no proof of who was being slapped nor is their any proof of who did the slapping.

No where in the dispatcher's testimony does she say she heard the woman call out for help, no where does she testify that she heard a man's voice. We all know that OJ Simpson couldn't keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it. He rants and raves.

You really need to know your facts before you go off like that. The juror you are talking about is Deena Mullen and she is not black. She is Greek. Also, she is the same juror who said the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder that she believes Mark Fuhrman planted the glove.

So what do you think of your juror now who believe MF planted the glove?

Pease provide a source for Denna Mullen saying she believed Mark Fuhrman planted the glove because I don't believe she did.

O.J. beat Nicole numerous times that is a fact and there is even photos of her face all bruised.

You need to stop posting false information.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe that there was any evidence that Simpson committed the bruises shown in the photos.

[socaldiva]

IRRC OJ Simpson admitted in court that he beat Nicole in 1989.

[William Anthony]

http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/SOR/ARCHIVE/WOMEN/DOMVIOL.TXT

We all make mistakes. :)

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

So you are blaming OJ Simpson for Nicole hitting the maid?

You have yet to produce any testimony that Nicole was in fact beaten once, let alone twice. I have posted the testimony regarding one slap what was elevated to a beating. There is no proof of who was being slapped nor is their any proof of who did the slapping.

No where in the dispatcher's testimony does she say she heard the woman call out for help, no where does she testify that she heard a man's voice. We all know that OJ Simpson couldn't keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it. He rants and raves.

You really need to know your facts before you go off like that. The juror you are talking about is Deena Mullen and she is not black. She is Greek. Also, she is the same juror who said the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder that she believes Mark Fuhrman planted the glove.

So what do you think of your juror now who believe MF planted the glove?


Thats funny and sad. Calling a greek person black and naming the wrong tv show. That is why i pay little attention to his/her post.The other white juror thought furhman could have planted the glove also

[martin II]

Pease provide a source for Denna Mullen saying she believed Mark Fuhrman planted the glove because I don't believe she did.

O.J. beat Nicole numerous times that is a fact and there is even photos of her face all bruised.

You need to stop posting false information.

you don't believe?

Please give a link to the HBO program and the black jurors name.

[martin II]

I don't believe that there was any evidence that Simpson committed the bruises shown in the photos.

There was none.

[Hipcheck]

Thats funny and sad. Calling a greek person black and naming the wrong tv show. That is why i pay little attention to his/her post.The other white juror thought furhman could have planted the glove also

Martin

It has been many years since I saw Deena Mullen on HBO and what I remember I thought she was black or at least she looked like it.

I am not wrong about her being on HBO because she could never say that O.J. nearly cut her f*cking head off. And I don't believe she said she thought the glove was planted at a detective.

[Hipcheck]

By the time of the murder trial in 1995, the Los Angeles Prosecution had complied a list of O.J. Simpson's abusive behavior which contained 62separate incidents of physical and mental mistreatment in addition to numerous threats and examples of control malipulaton he had carried out.

[socaldiva]

There was none.

The evidence says you are mistaken.

[GreenIce]

Pease provide a source for Denna Mullen saying she believed Mark Fuhrman planted the glove because I don't believe she did.

O.J. beat Nicole numerous times that is a fact and there is even photos of her face all bruised.

You need to stop posting false information.

Hipcheck,

I gave you the source, it was on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder. It is your choice to disagree with the juror.

There were photos from one incident. None of which proved who or what caused the bruises. The one photo with the towel on Nicole's head was not entered into evidence. Darden put the picture on the overhead and Judge Ito went off on him. They could not prove who took the picture, when it was taken or why it was taken.

You need to stop posting false information. I posted the facts.

[Hipcheck]

you don't believe?

Please give a link to the HBO program and the black jurors name.

www.inbaseline.com/project.aspx?project_id=52323

[martin II]

www.inbaseline.com/project.aspx?project_id=52323

You must know this is a Blog.

this is all i found.
A juror in the O.J. Simpson civil trial, Deena Mullen, relates her experiences in the courtroom and jury room. The documentary highlights theatrical monologues filmed in front of an audience, plus documentary and archival footage, and stylized reenactments.

[GreenIce]

Just as I thought that you have no proof of what you posted.

You continue to lie and post false information because I know for a fact that Deena Mullen would have never accused Mark Furhman of planting the glove found at Rockingham.

She said she knows he's guilty as hell.

Hipcheck,

Deena Mullen said that she believed MF planted the glove. However, she was not to speculate on how he did it. In the end, it did not matter to her if he did plant the glove, it was the what was on the glove that was more important to her.

[martin II]

Just as I thought that you have no proof of what you posted.



The link to the blog you gave does not say what you said.

[martin II]

Just as I thought that you have no proof of what you posted.

You continue to lie and post false information because I know for a fact that Deena Mullen would have never accused Mark Furhman of planting the glove found at Rockingham.

She said she knows he's guilty as hell.

Can you post the fact to prove that you know what she would have said??

[Hipcheck]

You must know this is a Blog.

this is all i found.
A juror in the O.J. Simpson civil trial, Deena Mullen, relates her experiences in the courtroom and jury room. The documentary highlights theatrical monologues filmed in front of an audience, plus documentary and archival footage, and stylized reenactments.

Why didn't you go further down where it lists the company as HBO, gives the producer, director, writer and other people involved.

[GreenIce]

Hipcheck,

Here is some information about Deena Mullen. Please remember, I could call you a liar for posting that she is African-American. I did not. And please note the comments about the size of OJ's head and hands.

"Juror Number 5"
Add a Comment
1 Comment | Add Yours
00Comments | Add Yours
By John Leonard Published May 31, 1999

Oddly enough, a wealth of first-rate documentaries also spend the week worrying about ideas of manhood. There is, for instance, the manhood of O. J. Simpson, as seen by Juror Number 5 (Tuesday, June 1; 10 to 11 p.m.; HBO). Deena Mullen, a half-Greek, half-Italian lighting designer, spent 58 days listening to testimony at the 1996 civil trial; looking at crime scene and autopsy photographs; taking notes and making sketches of shoes and stab wounds and DNA strands; trying on the bloody gloves; concluding that the football star had, indeed, cut off Nicole's head, and, in passing, stabbed Ron Goldman to death; going for a while after the verdict on the TV talk-show circuit; deciding that in some strange way she had become "the keeper of the horror"; and mounting the theatrical monologue which -- along with trial footage, "creative reenactments," and fancy F/X footwork by documentarians Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato -- is the basis of this absorbing, creepy hour. Much as there is to object to in the tarting up of a murder case as performance art, Mullen is not to be doubted in her sharp intelligence, honest outrage, and idiosyncratic originality. She is especially obsessed with the size of O.J.'s head and hands.

[Hipcheck]

Can you post the fact to prove that you know what she would have said??

I post something and you demand a link yet when I ask for a link from GreenIce she refuses to give one but I guess that doesn't bother you.

Deena Mullen never said she thought Mark Furhman planted the glove on her HBO show so I doubt she would have said it on Tom Snyder's show.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212363]


fgump2

To be fair you need to post Dr F study so we can see how he came to the conclusions you say he came to. making wild statements with nothing to back up or explain does nopt help people to believe what you say.

Who are you referring to as Dr. F, Dr. Dutton? I really wish you would tone down your postings. What wild statements are you referring to?
I often get the feeling you are trying to jab the needle in as deep as you can as often as you can.

I suppose you are referring to the statement by Dr. Dutton. I suppose it would be more convincing to you if gave an a background description of him. The Petrocelli book said he had a good background. Can you find an expert who disagrees with Dutton, or whatever you think my wild statements were.

In any case, one of the people who worked with him at Hertz said he would sometimes show up at his Hertz work upset about his relationship with women, and then calm down and be very charming with clients.

[GreenIce]

I post something and you demand a link yet when I ask for a link from GreenIce she refuses to give one but I guess that doesn't bother you.

Deena Mullen never said she thought Mark Furhman planted the glove on her HBO show so I doubt she would have said it on Tom Snyder's show.

Hipcheck,

I gave you the show, The Late, Late Show with Tom Synder. I have spent the last several minutes trying to find a complete guest list. Do not lie and say that I refused to produce a link.

You said that you knew for a fact that she did not say this, so where is your proof? Just because she did not say it in her HBO show, does not mean she did not say it on another show or did not feel that way.

You didn't even know what race she was, so how close were you paying attention to her show?

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/late-late-tom/205082


Sorry, I thought it was the Late, Late, Late show, 3 lates instead of the actual two. Sorry for any confusion the extra late may have caused.

[fgump2]

Hipcheck,

I gave you the source, it was on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder. It is your choice to disagree with the juror.

There were photos from one incident. None of which proved who or what caused the bruises. The one photo with the towel on Nicole's head was not entered into evidence. Darden put the picture on the overhead and Judge Ito went off on him. They could not prove who took the picture, when it was taken or why it was taken.

You need to stop posting false information. I posted the facts.

There may have been only one photo in the 1995 trial of Nicole with bruises. But there were witnesses who said she complained about his violence and expressed fear of him well before the 1989 new years day incident.

To dismisss all of these witnesses as worthless on the grounds that some of them made money selling their stories, or that some of them profited from being friends with Orenthal doesn't make much of an impression on me. Two of the witnesses of Nicole's fears and Orenthal's violence a married couple, David and D'Anne LeBon. These were close to Nicole in the 1980s, saw her less in the 1990s. I realize that they probably had some warts as we all do, but valid testimony can still come from people with serious character flaws.

Linda Schulman, another friend from the 1980s said that Nicole showed her bruises and said Orenthal hit her with a wine bottle.

There was other testimony, including some from people who were closer to Orenthal than to Nicole. Wayne Hughes, a lot closer to Orenthal than he was to Nicole, said that Orenthal once admitted that he caught Nicole "with too much backhand".

The fact that when the police called the Browns and told them that Nicole had been murdered, the police heard Denise in the background say something like "OJ did it". I don't say that Denise was either a wise woman or a saint. But her reaction is strong evidence that there were serious problems between Nicole and Orenthal, and that Nicole was afraid of him. I don't mean that this should be enough to convict him in the criminal trial (non admissable I think) or win a verdict in the civil trial, I merely say that it shows evidence that Denise thought Orenthal's behavior was a problem.

Most of this testimony didn't get into the 1995 trial, it was barred for various reasons. But we aren't barred from looking at these facts. To suppose that these people all made up their stories to profit from it doesn't make sense to me. Some of these people probably didn't know each other; and yet the stories are consistent.

[weezer]

I post something and you demand a link yet when I ask for a link from GreenIce she refuses to give one but I guess that doesn't bother you.

Deena Mullen never said she thought Mark Furhman planted the glove on her HBO show so I doubt she would have said it on Tom Snyder's show.

Article: The Verdict Of Juror Number Five; A Chilling View From O.J. Simpson's Civil Trial
Article from:The Washington Post Article date:June 1, 1999 Author:Tom Shales

"When she whines about the pesky inconveniences of jury duty, Deena Mullen is strikingly unaffecting. But when she talks about the specifics of the O.J. Simpson case, and the monstrous brutality of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, she is powerfully compelling, and so is the film made about her.

Mullen thinks Simpson is guilty as hell, and her account and insights should give even Simpson's few supporters second thoughts. . ."

[GreenIce]

There may have been only one photo in the 1995 trial of Nicole with bruises. But there were witnesses who said she complained about his violence and expressed fear of him well before the 1989 new years day incident.

To dismisss all of these witnesses as worthless on the grounds that some of them made money selling their stories, or that some of them profited from being friends with Orenthal doesn't make much of an impression on me. Two of the witnesses of Nicole's fears and Orenthal's violence a married couple, David and D'Anne LeBon. These were close to Nicole in the 1980s, saw her less in the 1990s. I realize that they probably had some warts as we all do, but valid testimony can still come from people with serious character flaws.

Linda Schulman, another friend from the 1980s said that Nicole showed her bruises and said Orenthal hit her with a wine bottle.

There was other testimony, including some from people who were closer to Orenthal than to Nicole. Wayne Hughes, a lot closer to Orenthal than he was to Nicole, said that Orenthal once admitted that he caught Nicole "with too much backhand".

The fact that when the police called the Browns and told them that Nicole had been murdered, the police heard Denise in the background say something like "OJ did it". I don't say that Denise was either a wise woman or a saint. But her reaction is strong evidence that there were serious problems between Nicole and Orenthal, and that Nicole was afraid of him. I don't mean that this should be enough to convict him in the criminal trial (non admissable I think) or win a verdict in the civil trial, I merely say that it shows evidence that Denise thought Orenthal's behavior was a problem.

Most of this testimony didn't get into the 1995 trial, it was barred for various reasons. But we aren't barred from looking at these facts. To suppose that these people all made up their stories to profit from it doesn't make sense to me. Some of these people probably didn't know each other; and yet the stories are consistent.

fgump2,

When did these people give depositions? How would these people have fared under cross examination? IMO, our system is based on being able to confront your accusers. I don't remember any of these people taking the stand in any hearing and answer questions from both sides.

It has been years since I have read Petrocelli's book. He is entitled to write what he wants, however, it does not mean that he wrote the truth or that he did not put his own spin on it or write the other side of the story.

If this testimony was not allowed then it did not meet the legal burden, which means, it could not be proved. IMO.

I am not dismissing these people as worthless, it is just a fact that there are always two sides to every story that is being told by one person. I just think it is only fair to be able to ask questions to find out the other side.

[martin II]

I post something and you demand a link yet when I ask for a link from GreenIce she refuses to give one but I guess that doesn't bother you.

Deena Mullen never said she thought Mark Furhman planted the glove on her HBO show so I doubt she would have said it on Tom Snyder's show.

Why did you post that this woman was black.?

You have not presented any proof of what you claimed in your post. So i take it as another one of your false claims.

You say you know what she would say and you have nothing to propve that except what you think she would.
i just think you don't know any better.

it is a waste reading your post.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

When did these people give depositions? How would these people have fared under cross examination? IMO, our system is based on being able to confront your accusers. I don't remember any of these people taking the stand in any hearing and answer questions from both sides.

It has been years since I have read Petrocelli's book. He is entitled to write what he wants, however, it does not mean that he wrote the truth or that he did not put his own spin on it or write the other side of the story.

If this testimony was not allowed then it did not meet the legal burden, which means, it could not be proved. IMO.

I am not dismissing these people as worthless, it is just a fact that there are always two sides to every story that is being told by one person. I just think it is only fair to be able to ask questions to find out the other side.
Some of these witnesses didn't testify because of either hearsay problems or statute of limitations. If we were writing a history book or a nonfiction magazine article, we wouldn't confine ourselves to what could be proved in court. I don't entirely approve of hearsay laws. I once heard a judge say that he thinks that courts are moving toward admitting more testimony now kept out by hearsay law, but I have never read anything about it.
I realize you can write that Petrocelli may not have been entirely honest. I have the feeling he was being honest, although he had the bias you would expect from a plaintiff lawyer and I disagreed with some of his interpetations.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

When did Dr. Faerstein talk to Simpson and when did he make these findings? Why was he brought into the case? Did he interview Simpson while he was preparing to be arrested? Did he speak to Simpson after he was in jail?

Are saying that OJ Simpson sent Sydney and Justin to Nicole's parents because he did not care about their well being? Are you saying that giving guardianship of his two minor children to Nicole's parents, even knowing they believed he killed their daughter was not done without any regard to their well being? Are you saying that Simpson's continued support check of $10,000.00 a month sent to the Browns was a sign that he did not care about the well being of his children?

What is this doctor's proof that Simpson did not care about the well being of his children? Simpson was a pitch man, he made a lot of money because of his image. He is not a stupid man, he knew that if his image was destroyed, he would not be able to make the money that he was accustomed to making and this would have a negative impact on how he would be able to support to support his family.

Are you saying that Mr. Simpson had to grief for Nicole on your terms or the doctor's terms? That in between the time of learning of Nicole's death and being arrested for her murdrers that he had more then enough time to grieve for Nicole in a manner that was acceptable, to who? You? Dr. Farenstein?

Bottom line from the moment Simpson realized that Nicole was murdered, he knew he was the number one suspect. Being handcuffed and listening to false media leaks regarding his as the prime suspect does not, IMO, lend a lot of time to greive for the loved one who has died. In fact, it is a well known fact, no matter how many people feel they are prepared for a loved one's death, there is no way to prepare this. Grief does not have a time limit on it and anger and feeling sorry for one's self is a big part of the process. IMO.

I don't know much about Faerstein. He was/is a forensic psychiatrist. I don't respect the psychotherapy profession as much as many people do, although I don't despise it either. Deciding such things as anti social personality disorder is imprecise.
In recent years there has been some attempts to use scientific objective methods to judge the degree of anti social traits. This includes both MRIs and showing the person a picture of injured people, such as car wrecks or war scenes, and then measuring the person's instantaneous physical reactions. I don't know how reliable that is, but the overall record of using psychiatry/psychology to predict behavior isn't very good. Some people in the field will admit this.
I would be surprised if any psychotherapist would say that the level of love and caring in a rich person can be measured by the size of the alimony or child support check they give (usually court required); so I feel disrespect for you bringing this up.

I notice you didn't try to chop up the testimony from L. Walker saying that Simpson wasn't anti social. You have a pattern of slamming prosecution people (LAPD employees and supporters of a guilty verdict). I don't think the opinions on Simpson of either Walker's or Faerstein made it into a court of law, so we aren't arguing about law here, just trying to understand what kind of a person Orenthal Simpson was, and was he a killer.

I posted the Faerstein information because some posters have posted that Lenore Walker's testimony that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder. I posted the part about Faerstein, because I thought that would neutralize the posting about Walker's conclusion. I think that both Walker and Faerstein are probably going to be wrong on a lot of their conclusions; as would any psychotherapists. To expect psychotherapists to be as accurate other scientists is not realistic.

Both Walker and Faerstein wouldn't be lousy therapists if they didn't realize that the emotional turmoil that Simpson was going through would make him upset in lot of ways.

It also irritates me that some people want to point to Walker's diagnosis that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder, but ignore the fact that Walker said Simpson admitted he got the phone message from his girl friend Paula B, which was more or less a break up message. The part about the phone message was straightforward; the part about judging anti social personality traits is more difficult. Simpson didn't just deny getting Paula's message in the civil trial, he denied it emphatically.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212326]

fgump2

Mrs Jenner made up a bunch of lies and sold her story to a rag.Just like Fay and the others. All of the bit players found something to say to so they could sell it.

What Nicole may have thought or what she may have written in her diary has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether oj killed her or not.In a court of law one cannot be convicted based on what a victim may have thought someone was going to do to them or what some other people think the victim thought. You continue to use this nonsense as proof of something when in fact it is proof of nothing but people talking for attention.

OJ was examined by the court professional. every aspect of his life before the social worker, the childrens lawyer and the judge said oj should have the children.Any one else giving opposite opinions if just making noise with words. It means nothing.imo

The child custody ruling was in favor of Mr. Simpson. I think it more or less had to be because he was the surviving parent, and he wasn't convicted. But judges, like all the rest of us are fallible. The ruling doesn't mean that he didn't kill people, or that he was a good father.

Referring to my beliefs as nonsense is wrong. One of the most common arguments of Orenthal's guilt is that there were too many coincidences for him to be innocent. I believe this to be true. The DAs chose not to introduce some of these coincidences in the 1995 trial, and others weren't admissable for various reasons.

What we write on this thead is not legal testimony. It is not bound by legal rules. In the law hearsay rules and other rules eliminate a lot of evidence that ordinary people pay attention to in their everyday life. If a person is writing history they often include evidence that would be kept out of court, at least in a criminal trial. Do you think history books should include only evidence that would be allowed in a criminal trial? A good history book about the Simpson trial and the aftermath would include a lot of hearsay evidence.

I also think the word "nonsense" on your part is bad manners.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

When did these people give depositions? How would these people have fared under cross examination? IMO, our system is based on being able to confront your accusers. I don't remember any of these people taking the stand in any hearing and answer questions from both sides.

It has been years since I have read Petrocelli's book. He is entitled to write what he wants, however, it does not mean that he wrote the truth or that he did not put his own spin on it or write the other side of the story.

If this testimony was not allowed then it did not meet the legal burden, which means, it could not be proved. IMO.

I am not dismissing these people as worthless, it is just a fact that there are always two sides to every story that is being told by one person. I just think it is only fair to be able to ask questions to find out the other side.
Actually there are more than two sides to a lot of questions. But the question of whether or not Mr. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron has only one true answer.

[fgump2]

Nicole gave as good as she got.She nerver backed away from a argument or a fight.

gave as good as she got? I think you pulled that out of thin air. One of his football friends said "she knew how to push his buttons", but that was verbal stuff, not physical.

Do you really think that Nicole put as many bruises on Orenthal as he put on her?

[GreenIce]

I don't know much about Faerstein. He was/is a forensic psychiatrist. I don't respect the psychotherapy profession as much as many people do, predict behavior isn't very good. Some people in the field will admit this.

I would be surprised if any psychotherapist would say that the level of love and caring in a rich person can be measured by the size of the alimony or child support check they give (usually court required); so I feel disrespect for you bringing this up.

I notice you didn't try to chop up the testimony from L. Walker saying that Simpson wasn't anti social. You have a pattern of slamming prosecution people (LAPD employees and supporters of a guilty verdict). I don't think the opinions on Simpson of either Walker's or Faerstein made it into a court of law, so we aren't arguing about law here, just trying to understand what kind of a person Orenthal Simpson was, and was he a killer.

I posted the Faerstein information because some posters have posted that Lenore Walker's testimony that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder. I posted the part about Faerstein, because I thought that would neutralize the posting about Walker's conclusion. I think that both Walker and Faerstein are probably going to be wrong on a lot of their conclusions; as would any psychotherapists. To expect psychotherapists to be as accurate other scientists is not realistic.

Both Walker and Faerstein wouldn't be lousy therapists if they didn't realize that the emotional turmoil that Simpson was going through would make him upset in lot of ways.

It also irritates me that some people want to point to Walker's diagnosis that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder, but ignore the fact that Walker said Simpson admitted he got the phone message from his girl friend Paula B, which was more or less a break up message. The part about the phone message was straightforward; the part about judging anti social personality traits is more difficult. Simpson didn't just deny getting Paula's message in the civil trial, he denied it emphatically.

fgump2,

You feel disrespect for me, why? You posted about Dr. Farenstein and his comments about Simpson. I simply pointed out the facts that counter his findings. He claimed that Simpson did not show concern for his children nor did he grieve for Nicole. I pointed out the facts--Simpson, even knowing that the Browns believed he killed their daughter, he still trusted his children, Nicole's children to be with them. Those are not the actions of a man who has no concern for his children. Most people who are faced with a loss of income, for any reason, do feel major concern that their inability to make money will have a negative impact on their children. Simpson, even in the situation he was in, still made his child support payments, even when he could have justified not paying it due to his circumstances.

I have never read Dr. Walker's testimony in this case. I do not believe Simpson is a wife beater. I do believe Simpson's actions of 1989 earned him the label of batterer, just as I believe Nicole also earned this label as well.

I do not know one person who would ever listen to a full 30 minute phone message. I lose patience after 45 seconds. Paula's phone message has no bearing on this case, there is no proof that Simpson killed Nicole because Paula was jealous of Nicole. The DA's knew about this phone call but they wanted nothing to do with it---why?

Simpson made it clear that he knew that it was not going to work between him and Paula and we know why she left the message. She could not handle not being at the top of Simpson's list. She knew she would always fall behind Nicole and Simpson's children. He also knew that she was so hurt when he broke up with her to go back to Nicole that she would not allow herself to be hurt again. I don't blame Paula for not being able to handle this and knowing herself well enough to understand this. She was a young beautiful woman who should not have to compete for his attention nor should she spend their entire life together wondering when she was ever going to be first in his life.

If you do not have a great amount of faith in this field of study, then why post their findings?

[fgump2]

He was found not guilty of murder and the eminent authority on spousal abuse opined that Simpson did not have an anti social personality disorder.
Did someone award Lenore Walker that title, the eminent authority on spousal violence?
Saul Faerstein came to a somewhat different conclusion although he didn't use the term anti social personality disorder. I posted Faerstein's opinion at least twice and it got hammered, by you among others. Why do you think Walker's opinion is more accurate? Petrocelli quoted some experts on spousal violence who said that Orenthal seemed to fit the pattern of a wife killer.

[GreenIce]

gave as good as she got? I think you pulled that out of thin air. One of his football friends said "she knew how to push his buttons", but that was verbal stuff, not physical.

Do you really think that Nicole put as many bruises on Orenthal as he put on her?

fgump2,

Again, you don't know the facts. Nicole was phyical with Simpson and this was in AC's deposition as well as other incidents that were written in books.

The problem is that Nicole is given a free pass on her behavior or all her behavior is blamed on Simpson. That is an unrealistic view, IMO. Bottom line, the Simpsons could be very loving to one another and they also could be verbally cruel to one another and both did get phyiscal with one another.

[Hipcheck]

Why did you post that this woman was black.?

You have not presented any proof of what you claimed in your post. So i take it as another one of your false claims.

You say you know what she would say and you have nothing to propve that except what you think she would.
i just think you don't know any better.

it is a waste reading your post.

Then don't read my posts and this is my last post to you as you are a waste of time.

So I won't post to you and ask you not to post to me.

[weezer]

Then don't read my posts and this is my last post to you as you are a waste of time.

So I won't post to you and ask you not to post to me.

ignore is a wonderful tool --I highly recommend it.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212356]

fgump2,

You need to make up your mind, either you accept all of Nicole's words and diary as the truth or you reject it. You can't say that she would tell the truth some of the time and then would lie other times. Example, she told several people that Simpson only hit her once. She was taped saying that it only happened once, and she didn't know she was being taped. Yet, G's dismiss this as Nicole lying. She also said that her friends would sell her out, yet she is also lying about this? I have seen no proof that Nicole always kept a diary and if she did, when did she start it and what were the full contents of the diary?

If Dr. Farenstein made the comments regarding Simpson, then he should have lost his license or been suspended. I don't remember reading anything about this but if he was hired by Simpson, then his report should never had made it into the public domain. I don't know how his statement got into the public domain, but I did a brief search on him, and found no evidence of him having professional problems with breaking rules.

You have no proof of Simpson's drug use, you have rumour. You do have proof of Faye's heavy drug use, but you dismiss that. I didn't dismiss that, I think that it was exagerrated. Your claims regarding Simpson have been proven not to be true. The fact that he was awarded custody of his children while being the most hated man in US speaks volumes. I am sure the judge and the legal system were hoping to find anything they could to ensure the kids stayed with the Browns. They found nothing.
Judges aren't infallible. It is true I don't have rock solid evidence of his involvement in drugs. Jim Brown said he had a cocaine problem.

The evidence of his drug problems are not as strong as I wrote. His anger problems resemble the anger problems caused by cocaine and amphetamines.
The way he could easily adjust to changes in his sleep schedule is another possible sign of a drug problem. I thought Nicole either wrote in her diary about her concerns with his drug use, or talked to her friends about it.
I don't expect what I have written here to convince everyone.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212361]
Judges aren't infallible. It is true I don't have rock solid evidence of his involvement in drugs. Jim Brown said he had a cocaine problem.

The evidence of his drug problems are not as strong as I wrote. His anger problems resemble the anger problems caused by cocaine and amphetamines.
The way he could easily adjust to changes in his sleep schedule is another possible sign of a drug problem. I thought Nicole either wrote in her diary about her concerns with his drug use, or talked to her friends about it.
I don't expect what I have written here to convince everyone.

fgump2,

Did you know that a crystal meth dealer said he sold Kato and OJ drugs that night? That he took a lie detector test and passed it?

If there was evidence of Simpson's drug abuse, such as cocaine or steriod abuse, the DA's would have used it. It would have answered a lot of questions. There are people who believe Simpson is guilty but had to be on something to murder two people with a knife. Some of those same people believe he did this and has since "blacked it out" of his memory. Again, if there was proof of this, the DA's would have used it.

There was no noticable change in Simpson's behavior as there was with Nicole's. Simpson's ability to adjust his sleep patterns probably are a direct result of living his life on planes and having to be in different time zones every couple of days.

Don't you think the DA's investigated the doctors that Simpson was seeing to determine if any drugs he was prescribed could have caused a radical change in his behavior? That he was treated for sleep problems or prescribed drugs for behavioral issues?

There were a lot of rumors about both of the Simpsons when it comes to drugs. IMO, it appears their drug of choice was most likely alcohol and if they did use drugs, it was not done on a regular basis and were able to walk away from it while they were still together.

The radical changes in Nicole in the last 6 months of her life suggests that drugs may have played a larger role in her life and that does not mean because she was abusing them.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212304]I think the way you and GI have attacked the people who say that Nicole was afraid that Orenthal would kill her shows a lack of fair play, and a lack of interest in the truth. Some of these attacks may be partly true, Faye had an addiction problem, probably not as serious as some say, but still a problem, and writing her book may have been ethically wrong. Kato and Susan Forward can be attacked also. I don't know if there have been any successful character assasinations about Kris Jenner, another friend who said Nicole was afraid of Simpson. Also what about Nicole's diary, has anybody tried to discredit it also?

fgump2,

How have Martin and I attacked the people who have said that Nicole was afraid that Simpson was going to killer her? We have asked point blank questions that you and other G's have not been able to answer.

I think it is a very to question some of Nicole's friends motives for speaking about Nicole's fear and Simpson's alleged abuse, only after she was dead. For while she was alive, these same friends still enjoyed the friendship of both the Simpsons. Some refusing to take sides and others were more concerned about losing OJ as a friend rather the Nicole. For instance, Kato. Nicole was so afraid that Simpson was going to kill her, he took OJ's offer of free room and board?

Faye, making claims that no one else made but wrote a book that not only kept her off the witness stand but painted a very ugly picture of Nicole and her habits toward the end of her life.

If Nicole was in fact fearful of her life, Dr. Forward was obligated by law to report this, she not only did not do this but she went public, broke her patient confidentiality as well as getting her license suspended. It has been pointed out that Nicole saw Dr. Forward twice, during her divorce proceedings and Nicole made no claims of abuse during the divorce. IMO, that is not attack on people, that is an attack perhaps how you wish or need to see these people.

Bottom line there is no proof of what any of these people have said only their claims that they knew this information but did nothing about it but make money off of it and try to get public sympathy after her death.

Kris Jenner was featured in the Shelia Weller book. She said that she was very afraid for Nicole at the end because of how Nicole was living were life. She made no mention of Nicole being afraid of Simpson. She also knew what Nicole was going through and what she was going to go through once her marriage ended, since she went through it. Well, not for very long because she married Bruce Jenner shortly after her divorce came through.

Nicole's diary is only taken seriously by G's when it says stuff that they like. However, when it says stuff that G's don't like, then it is worthless. You need to make up your mind.

Fair questions are not attacks on people, they are just that, fair questions.

Perhaps you should stop attacking people who refuse to believe everything that has been said by people who also have a motive to lie or stand to gain more from them.
Perhaps you should look at your own behavior. You seem to scrutinize everything that makes Orenthal look bad, but not the things that make him look good. Example, you slam Faerstein for having a negative report on Simpson. You questioned whether he ever treated (talked to) Simpson. And yet you don't question Lenore Walker's report.
You try to discredit all the friends of Nicole who said she was afraid of him, but when a group of people tell a consistent story, that adds credibility.
As for Nicole's diary being taken seriously only when it says stuff they like. No source is 100% reliable. I think there is adequate proof that she was not being truthful when she said he had only hit her once. She was under a lot of turmoil at the time. She may have felt guilt for "pushing his buttons". A lot of abused women both push the buttons and feel guilty later. She probably liked the money and perhaps the fame of being his wife. Most people like money.

I think it is common for people going through the turmoil that Nicole was going through tell lies at times. I don't know a whole lot about domestic violence but I do know that a lot of female victems (and possiblly male victems also but that is off the subject) will hide it at times. Do you think it is rare for victims of DV to feel shame about the problem and try to hide it, and go to a hospital and tell lies about how they got injured?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You feel disrespect for me, why? You posted about Dr. Farenstein and his comments about Simpson. I simply pointed out the facts that counter his findings. He claimed that Simpson did not show concern for his children nor did he grieve for Nicole. I pointed out the facts--Simpson, even knowing that the Browns believed he killed their daughter, he still trusted his children, Nicole's children to be with them. Those are not the actions of a man who has no concern for his children. Most people who are faced with a loss of income, for any reason, do feel major concern that their inability to make money will have a negative impact on their children. Simpson, even in the situation he was in, still made his child support payments, even when he could have justified not paying it due to his circumstances. I don't think his child support payments were voluntary.
I have never read Dr. Walker's testimony in this case. I do not believe Simpson is a wife beater. I do believe Simpson's actions of 1989 earned him the label of batterer, just as I believe Nicole also earned this label as well. To equate the violence of Nicole and Orenthal is misleading. There are degrees of violence.
I do not know one person who would ever listen to a full 30 minute phone message. I lose patience after 45 seconds. Paula's phone message has no bearing on this case, there is no proof that Simpson killed Nicole because Paula was jealous of Nicole. The DA's knew about this phone call but they wanted nothing to do with it---why?

Simpson made it clear that he knew that it was not going to work between him and Paula and we know why she left the message. She could not handle not being at the top of Simpson's list. She knew she would always fall behind Nicole and Simpson's children. He also knew that she was so hurt when he broke up with her to go back to Nicole that she would not allow herself to be hurt again. I don't blame Paula for not being able to handle this and knowing herself well enough to understand this. She was a young beautiful woman who should not have to compete for his attention nor should she spend their entire life together wondering when she was ever going to be first in his life.

If you do not have a great amount of faith in this field of study, then why post their findings?
I found it interesting that a pyschiatrist who was member of the defense team wrote an unpleasant report about him. I consider it as probably a little more reliable than a lie detector test. Way short of infallible, but also not to be totally ignored. I posted this report recently to counter the favorable report SImpsn got from Lenore Walker. Also to provoke a reaction.

I don't give Simpson much credit for allowing the kids to be with the Browns. I don't know how much legal alternatives he had at the time. His main concern was the criminal charges against him. I didn't try to put myself in his shoes at the time. I won't try now.

As for the money issues- he was a rich man even after the criminal trial. He moved to Florida to preserve his wealth. His football pension alone is quite a bit of money.

To me the significant point about the phone message from Paula is the emphaticness with which he denied it. Ever heard the Shakespeare quote "methinks the lady does protest too much?".

[weezer]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212326]
Perhaps you should look at your own behavior. You seem to scrutinize everything that makes Orenthal look bad, but not the things that make him look good. Example, you slam Faerstein for having a negative report on Simpson. You questioned whether he ever treated (talked to) Simpson. And yet you don't question Lenore Walker's report.
You try to discredit all the friends of Nicole who said she was afraid of him, but when a group of people tell a consistent story, that adds credibility.
As for Nicole's diary being taken seriously only when it says stuff they like. No source is 100% reliable. I think there is adequate proof that she was not being truthful when she said he had only hit her once. She was under a lot of turmoil at the time. She may have felt guilt for "pushing his buttons". A lot of abused women both push the buttons and feel guilty later. She probably liked the money and perhaps the fame of being his wife. Most people like money.

I think it is common for people going through the turmoil that Nicole was going through tell lies at times. I don't know a whole lot about domestic violence but I do know that a lot of female victems (and possiblly male victems also but that is off the subject) will hide it at times. Do you think it is rare for victims of DV to feel shame about the problem and try to hide it, and go to a hospital and tell lies about how they got injured?

Nicole's behavior showed all of the signs of an abused woman.

SIGNS OF AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
Your Inner Thoughts and Feelings Your Partner’s Belittling Behavior
Do you:
feel afraid of your partner much of the time?
avoid certain topics out of fear of angering your partner?
feel that you can’t do anything right for your partner?
believe that you deserve to be hurt or mistreated?
wonder if you’re the one who is crazy?
feel emotionally numb or helpless?

Does your partner:
humiliate, criticize, or yell at you?
treat you so badly that you’re embarrassed for your friends or family to see?
ignore or put down your opinions or accomplishments?
blame you for his own abusive behavior?
see you as property or a sex object, rather than as a person?

Your Partner’s Violent Behavior or Threats Your Partner’s Controlling Behavior
Does your partner:
have a bad and unpredictable temper?
hurt you, or threaten to hurt or kill you?
threaten to take your children away or harm them?
threaten to commit suicide if you leave?
force you to have sex?
destroy your belongings?

Does your partner:
act excessively jealous and possessive?
control where you go or what you do?
keep you from seeing your friends or family?
limit your access to money, the phone, or the car?
constantly check up on you?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212326]
Perhaps you should look at your own behavior. You seem to scrutinize everything that makes Orenthal look bad, but not the things that make him look good. Example, you slam Faerstein for having a negative report on Simpson. You questioned whether he ever treated (talked to) Simpson. And yet you don't question Lenore Walker's report.
You try to discredit all the friends of Nicole who said she was afraid of him, but when a group of people tell a consistent story, that adds credibility.
As for Nicole's diary being taken seriously only when it says stuff they like. No source is 100% reliable. I think there is adequate proof that she was not being truthful when she said he had only hit her once. She was under a lot of turmoil at the time. She may have felt guilt for "pushing his buttons". A lot of abused women both push the buttons and feel guilty later. She probably liked the money and perhaps the fame of being his wife. Most people like money.

I think it is common for people going through the turmoil that Nicole was going through tell lies at times. I don't know a whole lot about domestic violence but I do know that a lot of female victems (and possiblly male victems also but that is off the subject) will hide it at times. Do you think it is rare for victims of DV to feel shame about the problem and try to hide it, and go to a hospital and tell lies about how they got injured?

Fgump2,

You have a habit of posting stuff about what other's have said about Simpson, such as Dr. Farenstein. When someone takes issue with it, you then back away but continue to judge why their comments are questioned.

I did post testimony regarding Nicole's diary and Dr. Forward. If what Nicole wrote is in fact in discovery, then Nicole is on the record saying that she made up the stories about abuse and that Dr. Forward played a key role in this. Nicole refused to testify to this in her divorce proceedings.

My comments about Nicole's friends are fair comments. Had these friends come out and said they never knew, that they were shocked to find out and had they known they would have done something, then I can understand that.

However, for them to say they always knew, that Nicole showed them bruises and black eyes or whatever else and for them to do nothing but to continue to enjoy Simpson's friendship, then I think they deserve the scorn they should get and should not be looked at or be called true friends of Nicole's. If friends don't let friends drive drunk, they certainly don't let friends get beat up, over and over again.

If Faye Resnick was telling even a quarter of the truth, then she had an obligation to her friend and it wasn't to write a book--at least not before the trial.

You have often posted that Nicole told friends that Simpson was going to kill her yet you have never posted that she also allegedy said that her friends would sell her out. Did her friends sell her out?

[GreenIce]

I found it interesting that a pyschiatrist who was member of the defense team wrote an unpleasant report about him. I consider it as probably a little more reliable than a lie detector test. Way short of infallible, but also not to be totally ignored. I posted this report recently to counter the favorable report SImpsn got from Lenore Walker. Also to provoke a reaction.

I don't give Simpson much credit for allowing the kids to be with the Browns. I don't know how much legal alternatives he had at the time. His main concern was the criminal charges against him. I didn't try to put myself in his shoes at the time. I won't try now.

As for the money issues- he was a rich man even after the criminal trial. He moved to Florida to preserve his wealth. He football pension alone is quite a bit of money.

Fgump2,

What did Simpson have to gain by sending Sydney and Justin to the Browns? He had two adult children that he could have made them guardians. Also, his two older sisters moved to Rockingham during the duration of the trial and they could have been guardians as well. He had every argument to make in a court of law why the Browns should not have access to Sydney and Justin until the completion of the trial.

After he made arrangements for his children, of course his primary concern was the criminal charges against him. Is that so abnormal? Did Dr. Farenstein use others as examples why Simpson was acting outside the norm? What did he base his opinons on?

The reason why I take issue with Dr. Farenstein's comments is because he was hired by Mr. Simpson. He accepted Mr. Simpson's money and he enabled his report to be published. I don't think you would like this to happen to you and I know I wouldn't like it to happen to me. It seems to me that many G's feel that the actions of Dr. Forward and others are perfectly acceptable when it has to deal with Simpson but would be outraged if their experts went public went their reports on them. Would you like your doctor to release your medical records or speak about your health issues in the media?

In regards to Simpson moving to Florida to preserver his wealth, well what is the problem with that? If you were in a similiar situation, wouldn't you do the same? I know I would. And any of the media types such as Geraldo would do the exact same thing if they were in the same situation.

I agree that $25,000.00 a month seems to be nice pension. However, the amount of money doesn't matter because if it was you and your pension was the same or if it was $25.00 a month, it would still be protected.

[tv]

Then don't read my posts and this is my last post to you as you are a waste of time.

So I won't post to you and ask you not to post to me.

Hipcheck, give ignore a try and you may find your life is much more pleasant. Seriously. :)

[tv]

gave as good as she got? I think you pulled that out of thin air. One of his football friends said "she knew how to push his buttons", but that was verbal stuff, not physical.

Do you really think that Nicole put as many bruises on Orenthal as he put on her?

Gave as good as she got? Are we supposed to swallow the notion that Nicole at 129 pounds was able to defend herself effectively against a man with a reputation for plowing through 300 pound opponents on the football field? The arthritis/disability excuse doesn't do it for me either. I just finished watching clips from the exercise video that was filmed near the end of May 1994; he was keeping up physically with no difficulty. His explanation of never hitting her -- just 'wrassling' -- is also a bunch of balogna. The pictures of her show a woman whose face and arms have been battered. Why did she call 911 so many times if she was the aggressor? Why was she found outside partially dressed hiding in the bushes? I really don't understand how the Butcher closes his eyes at night and sleeps in peace.

[tv]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212743]

Nicole's behavior showed all of the signs of an abused woman.

SIGNS OF AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
Your Inner Thoughts and Feelings Your Partner’s Belittling Behavior
Do you:
feel afraid of your partner much of the time?
avoid certain topics out of fear of angering your partner?
feel that you can’t do anything right for your partner?
believe that you deserve to be hurt or mistreated?
wonder if you’re the one who is crazy?
feel emotionally numb or helpless?

Does your partner:
humiliate, criticize, or yell at you?
treat you so badly that you’re embarrassed for your friends or family to see?
ignore or put down your opinions or accomplishments?
blame you for his own abusive behavior?
see you as property or a sex object, rather than as a person?

Your Partner’s Violent Behavior or Threats Your Partner’s Controlling Behavior
Does your partner:
have a bad and unpredictable temper?
hurt you, or threaten to hurt or kill you?
threaten to take your children away or harm them?
threaten to commit suicide if you leave?
force you to have sex?
destroy your belongings?

Does your partner:
act excessively jealous and possessive?
control where you go or what you do?
keep you from seeing your friends or family?
limit your access to money, the phone, or the car?
constantly check up on you?

Good heavens, it's amazing how many of these apply to Nicole and Simpson.

[martin II]

Martin

It has been many years since I saw Deena Mullen on HBO and what I remember I thought she was black or at least she looked like it.

I am not wrong about her being on HBO because she could never say that O.J. nearly cut her f*cking head off. And I don't believe she said she thought the glove was planted at a detective.

Actually you really don't know what she may have said if you did not get the nattive.
i doubt a Greel-Itailan looked black. Maby you thought saying she was black would have more impact. This lady expressed her opinion just like other jury member did. 12 oither jurory dissagreed with her so she can believe what she wants to IT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

However she does give you another reason as to why the gloves did not fit but i guess you ignored that.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9212748]

Good heavens, it's amazing how many of these apply to Nicole and Simpson.

I guess any action could be used as a excuse to identify a abuser if that is the intent. Like getting another girl friend and telling everyone you are finished with your ex.Prancing around town with your new girl friend and putting her picture all over your house. Planning christmas parties with you new girl friend and your children.imo

[martin II]

Gave as good as she got? Are we supposed to swallow the notion that Nicole at 129 pounds was able to defend herself effectively against a man with a reputation for plowing through 300 pound opponents on the football field? The arthritis/disability excuse doesn't do it for me either. I just finished watching clips from the exercise video that was filmed near the end of May 1994; he was keeping up physically with no difficulty. His explanation of never hitting her -- just 'wrassling' -- is also a bunch of balogna. The pictures of her show a woman whose face and arms have been battered. Why did she call 911 so many times if she was the aggressor? Why was she found outside partially dressed hiding in the bushes? I really don't understand how the Butcher closes his eyes at night and sleeps in peace.

Plowing through 300 lb men was in ojs past.Fays husband explained oj hand and knee condition, so did his doctor and so did the man that conducted the exercise video with oj in his studio.He stated that oj could not perform simple manuvers because of his arthritis condition.
You also ignore that nicole was a daily jogger and gyn exercise lady, she and cora.So they thought she was in good condition. Ron according to some of his friend was a martial arts person, young and healthy.He must have been in great shape to put up the strong fight some believe he put up.Ignoring this ban lead to a faulty opinion.imo

i only know nicole called 911 once and oj did not touch her then according to her and the cops.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

What did Simpson have to gain by sending Sydney and Justin to the Browns? He had two adult children that he could have made them guardians. Also, his two older sisters moved to Rockingham during the duration of the trial and they could have been guardians as well. He had every argument to make in a court of law why the Browns should not have access to Sydney and Justin until the completion of the trial.

After he made arrangements for his children, of course his primary concern was the criminal charges against him. Is that so abnormal? Did Dr. Farenstein use others as examples why Simpson was acting outside the norm? What did he base his opinons on?

The reason why I take issue with Dr. Farenstein's comments is because he was hired by Mr. Simpson. He accepted Mr. Simpson's money and he enabled his report to be published. I don't think you would like this to happen to you and I know I wouldn't like it to happen to me. It seems to me that many G's feel that the actions of Dr. Forward and others are perfectly acceptable when it has to deal with Simpson but would be outraged if their experts went public went their reports on them. Would you like your doctor to release your medical records or speak about your health issues in the media?

In regards to Simpson moving to Florida to preserver his wealth, well what is the problem with that? If you were in a similiar situation, wouldn't you do the same? I know I would. And any of the media types such as Geraldo would do the exact same thing if they were in the same situation.

I agree that $25,000.00 a month seems to be nice pension. However, the amount of money doesn't matter because if it was you and your pension was the same or if it was $25.00 a month, it would still be protected.


There is a long list now of sports personalities, celebrity types and American business people that have moved to florida for the protection that the state law gives them.When the kids were at the Browns oj was paying them $10,000 a month for keeping them. He put them there because the Browns asked him to.

Any doctor that makes a person personal file public should be banned. obviously the contents of his report was written for the public not for the beneift of his patient.

[GreenIce]

Actually you really don't know what she may have said if you did not get the nattive.
i doubt a Greel-Itailan looked black. Maby you thought saying she was black would have more impact. This lady expressed her opinion just like other jury member did. 12 oither jurory dissagreed with her so she can believe what she wants to IT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

However she does give you another reason as to why the gloves did not fit but i guess you ignored that.

Martin,

Deena Mullen was one of the jurors who gave an interview right after the verdicts. She did talk about that she was often mistaken for being black. I don't know if any of those press conferences are still on the web.

I agree with you about the size of his head and his hands.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212737]

fgump2,

Did you know that a crystal meth dealer said he sold Kato and OJ drugs that night? That he took a lie detector test and passed it?

If there was evidence of Simpson's drug abuse, such as cocaine or steriod abuse, the DA's would have used it. It would have answered a lot of questions. There are people who believe Simpson is guilty but had to be on something to murder two people with a knife. Some of those same people believe he did this and has since "blacked it out" of his memory. Again, if there was proof of this, the DA's would have used it.

There was no noticable change in Simpson's behavior as there was with Nicole's. Simpson's ability to adjust his sleep patterns probably are a direct result of living his life on planes and having to be in different time zones every couple of days.

Don't you think the DA's investigated the doctors that Simpson was seeing to determine if any drugs he was prescribed could have caused a radical change in his behavior? That he was treated for sleep problems or prescribed drugs for behavioral issues?

There were a lot of rumors about both of the Simpsons when it comes to drugs. IMO, it appears their drug of choice was most likely alcohol and if they did use drugs, it was not done on a regular basis and were able to walk away from it while they were still together.

The radical changes in Nicole in the last 6 months of her life suggests that drugs may have played a larger role in her life and that does not mean because she was abusing them.

Don't forget the nightly bar hopping with Faye and the alcohol consumption.

The alcohol could be as much as the drugs.

[GreenIce]

There is a long list now of sports personalities, celebrity types and American business people that have moved to florida for the protection that the state law gives them.When the kids were at the Browns oj was paying them $10,000 a month for keeping them. He put them there because the Browns asked him to.

Any doctor that makes a person personal file public should be banned. obviously the contents of his report was written for the public not for the beneift of his patient.

Martin,

IMO, OJ sending the children to the Browns, and giving this order to Arnelle even before he was on his way to LA, points to his innocence. He had no way of knowing of what the kids saw or heard that night if he was the killer. I also think his question asking why the kids are at the police station also point to his innocence because had he been the killer, he would have known where Nicole was killed. I also think if he was the killer, and if Ron was such a surprise, there is no way he could have known what the kids saw or heard that night.

Also, Simpson did not change the guardianship even when the Browns came out to the media and accused him of the murders. Even when he knew they were selling items of Nicole's that also belong to him, such as the wedding video. I am not faulting the Browns and I believed they were taken advantage of by the media, however, if I was in a similar situation, I don't think I would have sent my kids there in the first place and I know I would have yanked them out of there once they started to trash me and accuse me of a crime I did not commit. IMO.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9212743]

Fgump2,

You have a habit of posting stuff about what other's have said about Simpson, such as Dr. Farenstein. When someone takes issue with it, you then back away but continue to judge why their comments are questioned.

I did post testimony regarding Nicole's diary and Dr. Forward. If what Nicole wrote is in fact in discovery, then Nicole is on the record saying that she made up the stories about abuse and that Dr. Forward played a key role in this. Nicole refused to testify to this in her divorce proceedings.

My comments about Nicole's friends are fair comments. Had these friends come out and said they never knew, that they were shocked to find out and had they known they would have done something, then I can understand that.

However, for them to say they always knew, that Nicole showed them bruises and black eyes or whatever else and for them to do nothing but to continue to enjoy Simpson's friendship, then I think they deserve the scorn they should get and should not be looked at or be called true friends of Nicole's. If friends don't let friends drive drunk, they certainly don't let friends get beat up, over and over again.

If Faye Resnick was telling even a quarter of the truth, then she had an obligation to her friend and it wasn't to write a book--at least not before the trial.

You have often posted that Nicole told friends that Simpson was going to kill her yet you have never posted that she also allegedy said that her friends would sell her out. Did her friends sell her out?

Faye wrote her book to make money like everyone else and not to testify on the stand.i never figured out why she told about nicole freebasing with her and about the lesbin affair as CF testified to. At the same time she claimed to be Nicoles best friend. All of nicoles friends found some way to have something to say about her and oj when it came time to make some cash. This includes mrs jenner the ex of RK.

i think it is all lies for cash.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212742]

Don't forget the nightly bar hopping with Faye and the alcohol consumption.

The alcohol could be as much as the drugs.

Martin,

I have often wonder why Nicole's housekeeper was never called to the stand. Almost as puzzling was why Mr. and Mrs. Brown were never called to the stand.

IMO, it appears that Nicole's lifestyle made her very ill toward the end of her life. I think being sick in bed for several days may have been wake up call for Nicole and perhaps put her back on a healthy track.

I have noticed that the friends who did express concern about Nicole's radical change, do not really describe very well as in what they think was wrong that brought about these changes. Perhaps Kris Jenner did feel guilty because she was the one who brought Faye into Nicole's life. She warned Nicole that Faye was high maintenance. I saw Faye and Kris on the Larry King Live Show and I believe Kris was there just to make sure that Faye stayed away from certain subjects. IMO, the fact that they said they remained friends with Faye after her books leaves me to believe they were more afraid of Faye rather then thinking she was a friend.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212750]

Faye wrote her book to make money like everyone else and not to testify on the stand.i never figured out why she told about nicole freebasing with her and about the lesbin affair as CF testified to. At the same time she claimed to be Nicoles best friend. All of nicoles friends found some way to have something to say about her and oj when it came time to make some cash. This includes mrs jenner the ex of RK.

i think it is all lies for cash.

Martin,

I don't think money was the sole motive. I think many of them did not to take the stand because they did not want their own "private" habits to be exposed. CR I think said that many of them were scared and they believed Faye was the reason that Nicole was murdered and slept with guns under their pillows. It was almost like they were relieved when the focus turned to OJ because they had nothing to fear from him.

In one of the online resources, it says that Kris Jenner moved her family out of the Brentwood area after the murders because she thought it would be safer. What did she have to fear from OJ Simpson?

Faye's claim that Simpson stole her diaries and was threatening her is laughable. I am sure she had a lot to fear, but not from Simpson. I find her reaction to being told about the murders to be very telling. IMO, she knew before hand what was going to happen. I also believe she is the person who may have called the police station at 10:30 p.m.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, OJ sending the children to the Browns, and giving this order to Arnelle even before he was on his way to LA, points to his innocence. He had no way of knowing of what the kids saw or heard that night if he was the killer. I also think his question asking why the kids are at the police station also point to his innocence because had he been the killer, he would have known where Nicole was killed. I also think if he was the killer, and if Ron was such a surprise, there is no way he could have known what the kids saw or heard that night.

Also, Simpson did not change the guardianship even when the Browns came out to the media and accused him of the murders. Even when he knew they were selling items of Nicole's that also belong to him, such as the wedding video. I am not faulting the Browns and I believed they were taken advantage of by the media, however, if I was in a similar situation, I don't think I would have sent my kids there in the first place and I know I would have yanked them out of there once they started to trash me and accuse me of a crime I did not commit. IMO.

OJ was nieve about the browns.The longer the kids stayed there the more racial comments directed at oj they heard which caused the court appointed Social worker to inform the judge of these comments and strongly reccomend
that oj be given his kids.The judge agreed.As far as the Browns selling Nicoles
private stuff for money this and other actions cause me to see them as a family always looking to make some easy money. OJ gave this family and nicoles sister a lot of free money.free. Lou never paid him back the $350,000 oj loaned him to save his house.Oj gave them almost $100,000 to keep his kids during the trial until he got his kids back.

[GreenIce]

OJ was nieve about the browns.The longer the kids stayed there the more racial comments directed at oj they heard which caused the court appointed Social worker to inform the judge of these comments and strongly reccomend
that oj be given his kids.The judge agreed.As far as the Browns selling Nicoles
private stuff for money this and other actions cause me to see them as a family always looking to make some easy money. OJ gave this family and nicoles sister a lot of free money.free. Lou never paid him back the $350,000 oj loaned him to save his house.Oj gave them almost $100,000 to keep his kids during the trial until he got his kids back.

Martin,

IMO, the point is, a if OJ Simpson was guilty of killing Nicole and Ron, he never would have sent the children to the Browns, period. They would have had closely monitored visitation with the children.

In all fairness to the Browns, they had all these people coming out of the woodwork trying to be or acting as their "agents". They got some really, really bad advice and they paid for that bad advice. However, what about the people who offered this tremendous amount of money for these items? Talk about being charmed by a snake oil salesman---no one has this mastered better the the media----especially the rags.

[martin II]

Fay did a good job of deflecting attention from herself by pointing her fingers at oj during her depo.Most of it made no sence. The other thing that made no sense is why Faye ran to rehab a few days before Nicole was killed, called her on the night she was killed and stayed on the phone for 30 minutes just before she was killed.

[GreenIce]

Fay did a good job of deflecting attention from herself by pointing her fingers at oj during her depo.Most of it made no sence. The other thing that made no sense is why Faye ran to rehab a few days before Nicole was killed, called her on the night she was killed and stayed on the phone for 30 minutes just before she was killed.

Martin,

There is absolutely no doubt that it was Faye on the phone who Nicole was at least crying with. Faye's lies about this should have been followed up by the police. IMO. Before they left Bundy that morning, they already had their man and no amount of facts were going to change that.

Lange and VA turned themselves into laughingstocks for the case, yet no one ever asks why?

Faye knew how the game was played and I believe she wrote the book to keep herself alive. She had nothing to fear from Simpson and behaving and making comments like Simpson has own private mafia, IMO, was also very telling indeed.

Also, very telling, is Simpson had the opportunity in his police interview to point the finger at Faye and anybody else, had he chosen to do so. Yet, he did not. In fact, he talked about Faye and drugs but he said he didn't think it had anything to do with the murders. When Faye started lying and after talking to Sydney, that is when OJ started looking at Faye as having something to do with the murders.

[martin II]

Martin,

There is absolutely no doubt that it was Faye on the phone who Nicole was at least crying with. Faye's lies about this should have been followed up by the police. IMO. Before they left Bundy that morning, they already had their man and no amount of facts were going to change that.

Lange and VA turned themselves into laughingstocks for the case, yet no one ever asks why?

Faye knew how the game was played and I believe she wrote the book to keep herself alive. She had nothing to fear from Simpson and behaving and making comments like Simpson has own private mafia, IMO, was also very telling indeed.

Also, very telling, is Simpson had the opportunity in his police interview to point the finger at Faye and anybody else, had he chosen to do so. Yet, he did not. In fact, he talked about Faye and drugs but he said he didn't think it had anything to do with the murders. When Faye started lying and after talking to Sydney, that is when OJ started looking at Faye as having something to do with the murders.

oj also did not believe fays tale that nicole had a lesbin affair with her.

[martin II]

When faye was living with nicole she blamed all of Nicoles problems on oj.

Oj sponsered some bit celiberity event in LA and did not invite Faye. Faye went to oj and begged for a invite and he gave it to her.She then went to Nicole and bragged that she had a invite to the event and Nicioe didn't.
This caused Nicole to call oj and accuse him of trying to steal her friend Faye.
Oj didn't know what she was talking about as he told her Fay had begged for the invite.
She ragged him out so much on this that this is one of the reasons he knew he was finished with Nicole and told her so.imo

[martin II]

i have to leave for a while. be back soon.

[GreenIce]

She did tell oj that if it were not for the kids she would s****every man he knew to get back at him for the women he had seen. or something like that.
posted here.I think that was in one of her letters. i will look back for the letter.

Martin,

She allegedly did write that in a letter. And IMO, this highlights another double standard in our society. As I have posted before, a man can say he is a horrible husband but is a great father and no one has any problems with this.

However, if a woman is a horrible wife that she is even a worse mother. The reality of the situation is men are still "allowed" to have sex without love being involved and they are studs. Women on the other hand are called "sl-ts and ho's if they behave in the same way.

[martin II]

Martin,

She allegedly did write that in a letter. And IMO, this highlights another double standard in our society. As I have posted before, a man can say he is a horrible husband but is a great father and no one has any problems with this.

However, if a woman is a horrible wife that she is even a worse mother. The reality of the situation is men are still "allowed" to have sex without love being involved and they are studs. Women on the other hand are called "sl-ts and ho's if they behave in the same way.

It has long been accepted that women are special.Held higher on the moral code than men. Some women don't agree. But in the minds of most this is what is accepted. Since men have been in charge it seems the code was set and kept in place by them. Men have dueled each other for the respect of women.

Men are attacked for their outside sexual involvement but THEIR partners, other women, seen to get off free. But i do agree that some attack women for their outside sexual activities.

EXAMPLE: The governor of NY lost his job and was attacked by many in the media for his involvement with a prostitute , while the prostitues he was involved with received new modeling and movie contracts and is a new celiberty around town.IMO

[martin II]

Martin,

She allegedly did write that in a letter. And IMO, this highlights another double standard in our society. As I have posted before, a man can say he is a horrible husband but is a great father and no one has any problems with this.

However, if a woman is a horrible wife that she is even a worse mother. The reality of the situation is men are still "allowed" to have sex without love being involved and they are studs. Women on the other hand are called "sl-ts and ho's if they behave in the same way.

When nicole and faye was doing the bar hopping she seemed to see it as having her freedom.Others saw it as kinda out of character for her.What is interesting is oj didn't seem to be interested or effected by her actions as she frequently discussed her new relations with him.Or even asked him for advice on some like their relationsheip had turned to something like sister and brother or good friends.:shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

She allegedly did write that in a letter. And IMO, this highlights another double standard in our society. As I have posted before, a man can say he is a horrible husband but is a great father and no one has any problems with this.

However, if a woman is a horrible wife that she is even a worse mother. The reality of the situation is men are still "allowed" to have sex without love being involved and they are studs. Women on the other hand are called "sl-ts and ho's if they behave in the same way.

This may be because society puts more weight of the money the man provides over being true to his wife as a person.

Basically it is not reasonable to put two people togeather and expect the relationship to last for 50 years without problems.Divioce rates prove this.imo

[William Anthony]

Did someone award Lenore Walker that title, the eminent authority on spousal violence?
Saul Faerstein came to a somewhat different conclusion although he didn't use the term anti social personality disorder. I posted Faerstein's opinion at least twice and it got hammered, by you among others. Why do you think Walker's opinion is more accurate? Petrocelli quoted some experts on spousal violence who said that Orenthal seemed to fit the pattern of a wife killer.

http://fathersforlife.org/fv/family_violence_main_page.htm

[Hipcheck]

Martin,

Deena Mullen was one of the jurors who gave an interview right after the verdicts. She did talk about that she was often mistaken for being black. I don't know if any of those press conferences are still on the web.

I agree with you about the size of his head and his hands.

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

[martin II]

FUGMP2
Something for you to consider on abuse.


This is a very informative web site.Many subjects to read.



By Lt. Cynthia T. Ferguson, CNM, MSN

Women in intimate relationships are frequently portrayed by modern society as “the victim” when violence or a homicide occurs in intimate partnerships. These women continue to be seen by American culture as weak individuals who suffer at the hands of domineering, powerful, over-controlling men. The myth that spousal murder is committed almost entirely by husbands who kill their wives must be dispelled. In addition, there are discrepancies within the legal system, where a female is treated more leniently for murdering her husband, than when a man murders his wife. The criminal-justice system has failed to see equality in the crimes in the sexes, allowing for biased views that women are less malevolent than men and more prone to victimization. The stigma is intractable that women are more likely than men to feel remorse for what they’ve done. While this may be true for some women; for others, the truth is much further away than many suspect.

Ever since the first domestic violence shelter was created in 1984, the issues of spousal homicide, statistics and numbers of homicides in the home related to abuse have become a part of historical record. The U.S. Justice Department’s 1994 Bureau of Justice Special Report indicated that in the category of murders of spouses, women represented 41 percent of killers.1 Women accounted for only 10 percent of defendants charged with all murders; however, women accounted for more than 40 percent of the defendants for all spousal homicides.

Many reports of U.S. criminal sentencing demonstrate that wives who kill their husbands are acquitted in 12.9 percent of cases, while husbands who kill their wives are acquitted in only 1.4 percent of cases. Additionally, a 1988 U.S. Justice Department study found men frequently receive an average sentence of 17 years for killing their spouses, vs. a six-year sentence for the woman who kills her husband.

http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html

[martin II]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.


If she was from southern Italy she could have darker than white skin.It is the African influence for many in that area. but looking black is another issue.

What you are overlooking is that many jurors felt that the prosecution was completely wrong on one issue but correct on others.It was the total of the case that allowed them to come to a conclusion.She could have believed furhman planted the glove but for her that meant nothing if she belived other stuff that told her oj did it.
It was pointed out that she took notes and was very smart.This gives the impression that she must have been right on what she told herself. But this could have meant that she knew how she wanted to vote from the beginning.
Saying shes smart does not guarantee that she got it right.imo

She sold her story too.Just like Nicoles friends.

[weezer]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

LOL -- that link isn't going to show up nor will any link that verfies a 'mistaken' post.

". . .Mullen said the jury did entertain the notion of a police conspiracy against Simpson but eventually dismissed it, feeling the intricate planning necessary was simply too elaborate to swallow. "If you're that creative," she said, "you're not working for the LAPD. You're working for Disney. . ."

[martin II]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

You say you got the story from HBO did you look there?

[martin II]

LOL -- that link isn't going to show up nor will any link that verfies a 'mistaken' post.

". . .Mullen said the jury did entertain the notion of a police conspiracy against Simpson but eventually dismissed it, feeling the
necessary was simply too elaborate to swallow. "If you're that creative," she said, "you're not working for the LAPD. You're working for Disney. . ."


Cute answer but it means nothing.

Obviously she was a person that no experience or knowledge of lapd framing or planting of evidence.She believed they only protect and serve.

In the field it never takes intricate planning to frame someone.They do it on the run and in this case i never believed it would have taken more that 1 detective with help with someone in the lab to manipulate and plant evidence.

Furhman only had to move/plant a knife to make the defendant look guiltyObviously the city of LA thought he did it because they setteled the case for a lot of money to keep furhman off the stand.

[weezer]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

from past experience, I can predict that the next step will be a request for a link to prove what you have said even as the original NG's 'mistaken' post and your request for link to are ignored.

[martin II]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

Its already proven she is Greek-Italian so i am not sure a picture matters. Without a link to her interview we have to decide if your memory
is accurate. Seems like she made up her mind from her notes.Maby before deliberations started.That would mean what? In your mind.

[martin II]

from past experience, I can predict that the next step will be a request for a link to prove what you have said even as the original NG's 'mistaken' post and your request for link to are ignored.

When requested, the original poster posted a link that gave zero info on the subject.So it seems that even he/she realizes that the responsibily to give a proving link was his/hers. Which has not happened so far. So your attemps to shift the responsibily to another poster, falls on deft ears. Sorry.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Obviously she was a person that no experience or knowledge of lapd framing or planting of evidence.She believed they only protect and serve.

In the field it never takes intricate planning to frame someone.They do it on the run and in this case i never believed it would have taken more that 1 detective with help with someone in the lab to manipulate and plant evidence.



"Obvious" to who? You? She never said she believed what you are implying. Why are you making this up?

"It never takes intricate planning to frame someone"? You believe it would have only taken 1 detective & 1 lab employee to frame this double murder on Simpson? That is absurd, imo.

[socaldiva]

When requested, the original poster posted a link that gave zero info on the subject.So it seems that even he/she realizes that the responsibily to give a proving link was his/hers. Which has not happened so far. So your attemps to shift the responsibily to another poster, falls on deft ears. Sorry.

Reread your post. It says when requested, so why do you then say "so it seems that even he/she realizes the responsibility to give a proving link was his/hers"?

[martin II]

"Obvious" to who? You? She never said she believed what you are implying. Why are you making this up?

"It never takes intricate planning to frame someone"? You believe it would have only taken 1 detective & 1 lab employee to frame this double murder on Simpson? That is absurd, imo.

IMO it would take 1 detective and one lab tech. 1 detective to move/plant evidence 1 lab tech to manipulate the blood evidence that was manipulated in the lab.The others would remain silent on what they may know or saw.The blue wall of silence and job security would guarantees this.

[martin II]

Reread your post. It says when requested, so why do you then say "so it seems that even he/she realizes the responsibility to give a proving link was his/hers"?

Is it that difficult
Hipcheck the original poster was asked for a link.The request.
Hipcheck gave a link that didn't contain info . Hipcheck knew he/she was responsible to give a link to prove his original post when he /she posted the first link otherwise he/she would not have posted any link.

Therefore there was no reason for the third poster to suggest it was the second posters responsibility to give a link.

[Hipcheck]

Reread your post. It says when requested, so why do you then say "so it seems that even he/she realizes the responsibility to give a proving link was his/hers"?

This all started when GreenIce posted that Deena Mullen said on the Late Late Show with Tom Synder that she felt that Mark Fuhrman had planted the golve at Rockingham.

I posted that I had been Deena Mullen who I thought was a black woman in a documentary on HBO talking about the civil trial and she never said she thought Mark Fuhrman planted any evidence.

I requested GreenIce if she could provide a link where Ms. Mullen was a guest on the Late Late Show with Tom Synder. She couldn't provide any such link.

I was then accused of being not only wrong about Mullen's race but had the wrong show as it wasn't HBO like I said.

I admitt that Ms. Mullen is not a black women like I said. GreenIce posted that Ms. Mullen had said many have mistaken her for being a black woman and I guess I was one of them.

I posted a link which showed that Deena Mullen had been on HBO like I said so I proved that I didn't get the show wrong.

Ms. Mullen has said publicly that the civl jurors did not believe in the notion of a police conspiracy.

[socaldiva]

*snip*Ms. Mullen has said publicly that the civl jurors did not believe in the notion of a police conspiracy.

That's because it makes no sense. They would have had to have had OJ's blood prior to him returning from Chicago & giving a reference sample.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Hipcheck the original poster was asked for a link.The request.
Hipcheck gave a link that didn't contain info . Hipcheck knew he/she was responsible to give a link to prove his original post when he /she posted the first link otherwise he/she would not have posted any link.


:confused::seeya::tongue:

[martin II]

This all started when GreenIce posted that Deena Mullen said on the Late Late Show with Tom Synder that she felt that Mark Fuhrman had planted the golve at Rockingham.i haven't checked but i believe it all started when you posted a post about a lady that said oj was guilty and other stuff including she was black.

I posted that I had been Deena Mullen who I thought was a black woman in a documentary on HBO talking about the civil trial and she never said she thought Mark Fuhrman planted any evidence.GI then identified the lady the name Denna Mullen not you and that she was on another show

I requested GreenIce if she could provide a link where Ms. Mullen was a guest on the Late Late Show with Tom Synder. She couldn't provide any such link.
I asked you for a link and you posted a link with no info.[B]GI posted from a article that gave the ladys name and that she was greek-italian and that she noticed ojs big head and hands and that she took great notes.
I was then accused of being not only wrong about Mullen's race but had the wrong show as it wasn't HBO like I said.

I admitt that Ms. Mullen is not a black women like I said. GreenIce posted that Ms. Mullen had said many have mistaken her for being a black woman and I guess I was one of them.

I posted a link which showed that Deena Mullen had been on HBO like I said so I proved that I didn't get the show wrong.I have not seen this post but i will look for it. i asked you for a link to your original story and you have not posted one.



Ms. Mullen has said publicly that the civl jurors did not believe in the notion of a police conspiracy.

I will look for your post to see who started the discussion.


Hip check you made the first post on this subject when you talked about the black juror that was HBO see it below gi then identified the lady by name. not you
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
you don't believe?

Please give a link to the HBO program and the black jurors name.
The above is my request for a link and you posted the below link that gave no info on the subject
Gi Then gave you the name of the show for you to find it if you like.

www.inbaseline.com/project.aspx?project_id=52323
---------------
If you had given a link to your claim all of this would not have been necessary or you could have simply said this claim is from memory.You stated it as fact and you have mot proven it as yet.You just claimed that gi started this discussion but it was actually you when you posted the ladys comments.It was GI that told you her name. hope this refreshes your memory.

[William Anthony]

They had Simpson's blood before some of the samples were collected and certainly before the blood was tested for DNA.

[socaldiva]

Posted by Martin II:

i haven't checked but i believe

Priceless :tongue:

[GreenIce]

I remember watching Deena Mullen on HBO and I thought she was a black woman. I've looked to find a picture of her but just can't seem to find one.

Have you found where she was on the show with Tom Synder?

I just can't believe that Ms. Mullen would think that Mark Furhman planted the glove at Rockingham as she said O.J.'s lawyers accusations were fairy tails.

Hipcheck,

She was on the show around April 1997. I can't find a complete guest list.

Ms. Mullen believed that it didn't matter if the glove was planted. It was not where the glove was found but was on the glove that mattered. She also said that she had to stop herself from trying to figure out how he did it because she was not allowed to speculate.

I have often posted that the glove, that all the blood that was found much later could have been planted but that does not mean that Simpson is innocent.

[martin II]

They had Simpson's blood before some of the samples were collected and certainly before the blood was tested for DNA.

Vanhatter had samples of ojs blood on 6/13. Then he collected Rons and Nicole by devious means i might say.

[socaldiva]

Vanhatter had samples of ojs blood on 6/13. Then he collected Rons and Nicole by devious means i might say.


It appears as though you are making things up again. :no:

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

She was on the show around April 1997. I can't find a complete guest list.

Ms. Mullen believed that it didn't matter if the glove was planted. It was not where the glove was found but was on the glove that mattered. She also said that she had to stop herself from trying to figure out how he did it because she was not allowed to speculate.

I have often posted that the glove, that all the blood that was found much later could have been planted but that does not mean that Simpson is innocent.

Her reasons sound silly.The glove could have been found anyplace as far as she was concerned. She did not know how oj did it but she know he did it. If she didn't speculate what did she do in deliberations? She didn't have much le planting evidence clains by the defence to consider because the judge blocked all of that before trial.She is a interesting lady.

[martin II]

It appears as though you are making things up again. :no:

It appears that you don't know that vanhatter took ojs blood samples on 6/13. The balance can be found in testimony.

[socaldiva]

It appears that you don't know that vanhatter took ojs blood samples on 6/13. The balance can be found in testimony.

You are claiming that Vanhatter took OJ's blood a day prior to the murders? I think you are wrong. You are claiming the testimony shows Ron & Nicole's blood was collected by "devious means"? Nope.

[martin II]

You are claiming that Vanhatter took OJ's blood a day prior to the murders? I think you are wrong. You are claiming the testimony shows Ron & Nicole's blood was collected by "devious means"? Nope.

The murders took place on 6/12 as far as i know. The blood was taken on 6/13 the next day. Tell me when you think the murders took place. if you think 6/13 is prior to 6/12 tell me why.

[GreenIce]

Her reasons sound silly.The glove could have been found anyplace as far as she was concerned. She did not know how oj did it but she know he did it. If she didn't speculate what did she do in deliberations? She didn't have much le planting evidence clains by the defence to consider because the judge blocked all of that before trial.She is a interesting lady.

Martin,

Actually, she did follow the jury instructions. Judge Fujisaki made it clear, it did not matter how, who or when it was collected, only that it was collected.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, she did not invalidate the criminal trial verdict and said that they had a different burden of proof, different evidence, etc.

IMO, I think there are G's who believe Simpson is guilty but evidence was planted.

[martin II]

Martin,

Actually, she did follow the jury instructions. Judge Fujisaki made it clear, it did not matter how, who or when it was collected, only that it was collected.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, she did not invalidate the criminal trial verdict and said that they had a different burden of proof, different evidence, etc.

IMO, I think there are G's who believe Simpson is guilty but evidence was planted.

The judge did cut the legs out from under the defense. I guess she was saying it was easy for her to convict because the plaintiff didn't have a high bar to prove their case. Plus she could not consider that le did anything wrong.It was a easy neat package all wrapped up. That sound right.

[martin II]

Many have suggested that le enhanced their case to be sure of a convictoion.This imo would only be required if the evidence was not solid.
But when one starts to mess with the evidence it screws everything up
because a good defense lawyer can discover the "messing".

[GreenIce]

Many have suggested that le enhanced their case to be sure of a convictoion.This imo would only be required if the evidence was not solid.
But when one starts to mess with the evidence it screws everything up
because a good defense lawyer can discover the "messing".

Martin,

I have to disagree with you. The DA's had to consider the possibility that all the evidence at Rockingham would be thrown out---once the defense got the grand jury tossed, they had to to be concerned about it. IMO, they also had to consider not calling MF to the stand and not introduce the glove.

MF was dead on when he said that if he went down, the glove went down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

With that statement alone, not only does it prove, IMO, the motive for planting and tampering with evidence, but how soon the DA's and the LAPD knew their case was screwed.

While I think Simpson had the best representation, I don't think it would have taken an expert lawyer to find the mistakes in this case. That is one of the things that always bothered was just how blantent it was--initials there then gone? Taking pictures weeks later and blood shows up? IMO, every piece of evidence was suspect and I truly don't understand how anyone can't see that. I really don't.

IMO, I believe Simpson leveled the playing field and I also believe that if other defendants were able to do the same, we would not have such a high conviction rate.

Gerry Spence made a few comments that police departments are more times then not sloppy in their investigations, this time they got caught.

[martin II]

Martin,

I have to disagree with you. The DA's had to consider the possibility that all the evidence at Rockingham would be thrown out---once the defense got the grand jury tossed, they had to to be concerned about it. IMO, they also had to consider not calling MF to the stand and not introduce the glove.

MF was dead on when he said that if he went down, the glove went down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it.

With that statement alone, not only does it prove, IMO, the motive for planting and tampering with evidence, but how soon the DA's and the LAPD knew their case was screwed.

While I think Simpson had the best representation, I don't think it would have taken an expert lawyer to find the mistakes in this case. That is one of the things that always bothered was just how blantent it was--initials there then gone? Taking pictures weeks later and blood shows up? IMO, every piece of evidence was suspect and I truly don't understand how anyone can't see that. I really don't.

IMO, I believe Simpson leveled the playing field and I also believe that if other defendants were able to do the same, we would not have such a high conviction rate.

Gerry Spence made a few comments that police departments are more times then not sloppy in their investigations, this time they got caught.

After reading your well written post i believe we are in agreement.
They got caught

[William Anthony]

if you think 6/13 is prior to 6/12 tell me why.

I am awaiting that answer, :).

[Hipcheck]

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/cochran.htm

While on camera, Cochran declared Simspon to be "presumed innocent." However off camera, Cochran told a friend, "O.J. is in massive denial, he obviously did it."

[William Anthony]

While I immensely admire the magnificent one's courtroom skills, I do not assign him any super human characteristics. The magnificent one seems to have been privy to the human flaw of making judgments and not adhering to the presumption of innocence until all the evidence has been heard, since his alleged comments were supposedly made on the day of the so-called police chase and I am not certain, if he had been retained by Simpson or reviewed the trustworthiness of the evidence against Simpson.

[martin II]

I am awaiting that answer, :).

She has not responded so maby she is looking for a calander that shows 13 is before 12.

[martin II]

While I immensely admire the magnificent one's courtroom skills, I do not assign him any super human characteristics. The magnificent one seems to have been privy to the human flaw of making judgments and not adhering to the presumption of innocence until all the evidence has been heard, since his alleged comments were supposedly made on the day of the so-called police chase and I am not certain, if he had been retained by Simpson or reviewed the trustworthiness of the evidence against Simpson.

No he was not.

Oj hired the magnificent one from his jail cell.I think that before his arrest oj may have been in denial.Thinking that the cops would not frame him but the magnificent one set him straight on that.

[William Anthony]

No he was not.

Oj hired the magnificent one from his jail cell.I think that before his arrest oj may have been in denial.Thinking that the cops would not frame him but the magnificent one set him straight on that.

Thanks. I'll bet after the magnificent one saw the alleged mountain of evidence he told Simpson don't worry.

[martin II]

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/cochran.htm

While on camera, Cochran declared Simspon to be "presumed innocent." However off camera, Cochran told a friend, "O.J. is in massive denial, he obviously did it."

1. The indirect quote in the article is obviouslyt not true.Otherwise it would have been included in the direct interview.

2. The article is wrong on why Shaperio was demonted by OJ.
Shaperio had made some talks to the DA about a plea for oj.Without ojs
knowledge.When oj found out Cochran advised oj against it. Oj them made
Cochran the lead lawyer of the team and demoted Shaperio from lead
lawyer.


I see you must have missed the part of the article about him being selected as one of the best trial lawyers by his peers.


In addition to O.J. Simpson, Cochran's high profile clients have included Michael Jackson, Reginald Denny, Abner Louima, Geronimo Pratt (former Black Panther), Todd Bridges, James Brown, Angela Igwe, and Cynthia Wiggins. Cochran has been selected as one of the best trial lawyers in the country in 1994. Cochran has written his autobiography, Journey to Justice, and drives a Rolls-Royce with the vanity plate "JC JR."



.

[martin II]

Thanks. I'll bet after the magnificent one saw the alleged mountain of evidence he told Simpson don't worry.

As a prosecutor the magnificent one knew how the crooks in le and the DAs office worked.It did not take him long to identify the lies and manipulations so he must have told oj why take a plea and serve some time when you know you did not kill any one and i am your lawyer. imo

[socaldiva]

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/cochran.htm

While on camera, Cochran declared Simspon to be "presumed innocent." However off camera, Cochran told a friend, "O.J. is in massive denial, he obviously did it."

IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

[martin II]

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/cochran.htm

While on camera, Cochran declared Simspon to be "presumed innocent." However off camera, Cochran told a friend, "O.J. is in massive denial, he obviously did it."

What you don't seem to understand is that cochran and no other defense lawyer would ever say his client is guilty.

[William Anthony]

As a prosecutor the magnificent one knew how the crooks in le and the DAs office worked.It did not take him long to identify the lies and manipulations so he must have told oj why take a plea and serve some time when you know you did not kill any one and i am your lawyer. imo

He said something after reviewing the alleged mountain of evidence, which resulted in the demotion of a certain lawyer known as a settlement lawyer.

[martin II]

IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

If your story is true what does 'WHAT DO YOU Think"actually mean"

[William Anthony]

I think when the magnificent one answered the man on the street he was being kind as it did not matter what the magnificent one thought or anyone else, because the verdict was not guilty and thus it will remain forever.

[martin II]

He said something after reviewing the alleged mountain of evidence, which resulted in the demotion of a certain lawyer known as a settlement lawyer.

In legal circles in LA Shaperio was known as a settlement lawyer because he hated to spend time in court defending his client. He just made a deal with the DA took the clients money and allowed him to go to jail.Bailey called Shaperio lazy.Shaoerio was also known as THE PEACOCK.

[martin II]

I think when the magnificent one answered the man on the street he was being kind as it did not matter what the magnificent one thought or anyone else, because the verdict was not guilty and thus it will remain forever.

Correct

[martin II]

IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

Did you find your calendar?

[Hipcheck]

IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

Check out this link.

voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie-cochran_really_th.html

[martin II]

Check out this link.

voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie-cochran_really_th.html

The link did not work for me.

[Hipcheck]

Check out this link.

voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie_cochran_really_th.html

[martin II]

In addition to O.J. Simpson, Cochran's high profile clients have included Michael Jackson, Reginald Denny, Abner Louima, Geronimo Pratt (former Black Panther), Todd Bridges, James Brown, Angela Igwe, and Cynthia Wiggins. Cochran has been selected as one of the best trial lawyers in the country in 1994. Cochran has written his autobiography, Journey to Justice, and drives a Rolls-Royce with the vanity plate "JC JR."

[socaldiva]

Check out this link.

voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie-cochran_really_th.html

Thanks for the link, now that I believe. I'd say the Washington Post is certainly a reputable publication.

[William Anthony]

Check out this link.

voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/12/what_johnnie_cochran_really_th.html

The point of this link is what? it has been given before and discussed. I do not see anything in there that said the magnificent one said Simpson committed any crime.

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9212750]

Faye wrote her book to make money like everyone else and not to testify on the stand.i never figured out why she told about nicole freebasing with her and about the lesbin affair as CF testified to. At the same time she claimed to be Nicoles best friend. All of nicoles friends found some way to have something to say about her and oj when it came time to make some cash. This includes mrs jenner the ex of RK.

i think it is all lies for cash.

Correction to your post - it was Cora Fischman who first publicly spoke out about Nicole's intimate evening with Faye. Faye had not mentioned the evening at that point, and only wrote about it in her book after Ms. Fischman had already spouted her mouth off on national television.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Fay did a good job of deflecting attention from herself by pointing her fingers at oj during her depo.Most of it made no sence. The other thing that made no sense is why Faye ran to rehab a few days before Nicole was killed, called her on the night she was killed and stayed on the phone for 30 minutes just before she was killed.

If we can so recall, Faye did not "run" anywhere. An intervention was held, in which Faye agreed - reluctantly I might add - to enter the rehabilitation center.

Kate

[William Anthony]

A comment from the Washington Post blog link as to it being believable.



"by tradition of the craft, those comments are now fair game

Uh . . . I have never heard of such a tradition."

[martin II]

faye told Cora about the lesbian affair in the limo going to nicoles grave or right after the trip there. Long before her book.

Faye knew she had to go someplace. Nicole wanter out of her house because of the people that faye was causing to come to nicoles house. CR had tossed her out. Her kid was living at a friends or relatvies house.She was burned out and more that not had unpaid drug debts.I believe she had put the beg on nicole for her expensibe habit. Regardless of what she pretended that she did not want to go to rehab she knew she had to go for protection and get off the street. She even volunteered to go if nicole went with her.Making the assumption that nicole need to be in rehab also.

[William Anthony]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-deggans/was-obama-advisor-felled-_b_90463.html

[Kate Sachel]

faye told Cora about the lesbian affair in the limo going to nicoles grave or right after the trip there. Long before her book.

Telling an individual whom you believe is a friend in the confines of a vehicle is wholly different from telling millions of strangers on national television, which is exactly what Cora did and no amount of twisting is going to change that. In addition, I believe it was Nicole that actually originally told Cora about the evening.

Faye wrote about it in her book after Cora aired the news on television.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The three fastest ways to relay news are the telephone, television and tell a woman. :) Just a joke.

[martin II]

I don't believe there is a defense lawyer in America that would tell the public
that his client was guilty.

[weezer]

Telling an individual whom you believe is a friend in the confines of a vehicle is wholly different from telling millions of strangers on national television, which is exactly what Cora did and no amount of twisting is going to change that. In addition, I believe it was Nicole that actually originally told Cora about the evening.

Faye wrote about it in her book after Cora aired the news on television.

Kate

I've always thought that cora was the slimiest of all the friends only because she pretended to be something she wasn't. She used Nicole as a cover while she slept with the grocery boy (and who knows what/who else) but had the nerve to act indignant over Nicole's lifestyle -- geez. and then there was the weekend after the murders that she met orenthal out of town -- ewww -- she was probably one of the ones Nicole knew would betray her.

[tv]

I've always thought that cora was the slimiest of all the friends only because she pretended to be something she wasn't. She used Nicole as a cover while she slept with the grocery boy (and who knows what/who else) but had the nerve to act indignant over Nicole's lifestyle -- geez. and then there was the weekend after the murders that she met orenthal out of town -- ewww -- she was probably one of the ones Nicole knew would betray her.

I completely agree. Cora was all about Cora. As I recall, Nicole was upset because Cora was using her to have an affair with the grocery boy and her weekend with Simpson was just plain sleazy, imo.

[weezer]

I completely agree. Cora was all about Cora. As I recall, Nicole was upset because Cora was using her to have an affair with the grocery boy and her weekend with Simpson was just plain sleazy, imo.

have you read where anyone other than faye and cora said they knew about the alledged encounter between faye and Nicole?

[tv]

have you read where anyone other than faye and cora said they knew about the alledged encounter between faye and Nicole?

Not that I can recall. The way I understand it, Cora was angry because Faye was getting all the publicity after Nicole's death and she was jealous of the attention. That's why she turned and joined Simpson's camp. If she betrayed a confidence regarding the encounter between Nicole and Faye by repeating what either one of them told her she's a snake in the grass...that's always been my opinion of her.

[fgump2]

What you don't seem to understand is that cochran and no other defense lawyer would ever say his client is guilty.
Cochran's was not Simpson's lawyer at the time.

[weezer]

Not that I can recall. The way I understand it, Cora was angry because Faye was getting all the publicity after Nicole's death and she was jealous of the attention. That's why she turned and joined Simpson's camp. If she betrayed a confidence regarding the encounter between Nicole and Faye by repeating what either one of them told her she's a snake in the grass...that's always been my opinion of her.

Nicole predicted two things:
1 - her friends would sell her out -- they did
2 - orenthal was going to kill her -- he did

[fgump2]

The murders took place on 6/12 as far as i know. The blood was taken on 6/13 the next day. Tell me when you think the murders took place. if you think 6/13 is prior to 6/12 tell me why.

I think this disagreement is unworthy of anyone over the age of about 10. At least in the way you express your side of it.

[tv]

Nicole predicted two things:
1 - her friends would sell her out -- they did
2 - orenthal was going to kill her -- he did

:beer:

[martin II]

I've always thought that cora was the slimiest of all the friends only because she pretended to be something she wasn't. She used Nicole as a cover while she slept with the grocery boy (and who knows what/who else) but had the nerve to act indignant over Nicole's lifestyle -- geez. and then there was the weekend after the murders that she met orenthal out of town -- ewww -- she was probably one of the ones Nicole knew would betray her.

It would be helpful if you notified posters that your post is your opinions. Some may believe it is true.

[martin II]

I think this disagreement is unworthy of anyone over the age of about 10. At least in the way you express your side of it.

Let me inform you
the poster posted to me saying 6/13 was before 6/12 That when i said ojs blood was taken on 6/13 i was wrong.

Otherwise i am not the least bit concerned about what you think. Its ok if you agree with that poster.

[martin II]

Cochran's was not Simpson's lawyer at the time.

Here is the original post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldiva
IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

NOW. when do you think Cochran stopped working for oj.

[martin II]

I think this disagreement is unworthy of anyone over the age of about 10. At least in the way you express your side of it.

FGUMP2

MABY YOU SHOULD READ THIS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
It appears that you don't know that vanhatter took ojs blood samples on 6/13. The balance can be found in testimony.

You are claiming that Vanhatter took OJ's blood a day prior to the murders? I think you are wrong. You are claiming the testimony shows Ron & Nicole's blood was collected by "devious means"? Nope.

[GreenIce]

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/cochran.htm

While on camera, Cochran declared Simspon to be "presumed innocent." However off camera, Cochran told a friend, "O.J. is in massive denial, he obviously did it."

Hipcheck,

IMO, what Mr. Cochran allegedly told a "friend" means nothing since the friend did not have the courage to face the camera or the media to identify him or herself.

Also, I thought Simpson was guilty, until the trial started and that is when I had I my doubts. However, I was convinced during the prelim hearing that he was guilty but he would never be convicted because no one was going to believe the lead detectives.

However, what I think it is more important about the police sources who leaked that Nicole and OJ's blood was found on the socks before they were even sent out to be tested. Now, that is worth a discussion, IMO.

Remember, very early on all the talking heads were going off sources "close to the case in the LAPD". All the leaks had started and ended with the LAPD.

[GreenIce]

While I immensely admire the magnificent one's courtroom skills, I do not assign him any super human characteristics. The magnificent one seems to have been privy to the human flaw of making judgments and not adhering to the presumption of innocence until all the evidence has been heard, since his alleged comments were supposedly made on the day of the so-called police chase and I am not certain, if he had been retained by Simpson or reviewed the trustworthiness of the evidence against Simpson.

William,

IMO, I do not believe that Cochran would say something like that. Cochran would never say anything like that because he knew that he had a very good chance on being hired by Simpson. Because Simpson hired Shapiro does not mean that Simpson as well as Shapiro knew that would need a black lawyer that was extremely well known. IMO, I think Cochran, like Scheck knew in their 'gut' they were going to be involved in the trial.

Also, Cochran also knew the LAPD and he knew the DA's office. I don't think he would have said something like that. I can see him saying something like the evidence appears to be very strong against him, but to say that he is obviously guilty---I doubt it, bad for business, IMO.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

IMO, what Mr. Cochran allegedly told a "friend" means nothing since the friend did not have the courage to face the camera or the media to identify him or herself.

Also, I thought Simpson was guilty, until the trial started and that is when I had I my doubts. However, I was convinced during the prelim hearing that he was guilty but he would never be convicted because no one was going to believe the lead detectives.

However, what I think it is more important about the police sources who leaked that Nicole and OJ's blood was found on the socks before they were even sent out to be tested. Now, that is worth a discussion, IMO.

Remember, very early on all the talking heads were going off sources "close to the case in the LAPD". All the leaks had started and ended with the LAPD.

On CSNBC a private investigator said today "THE LAPD is the largest leaking police dept in America." " That they did a hugh leaking job during the OJ case and they are now doing it in the MJ case." "Leaking false info to the public"

[martin II]

William,

IMO, I do not believe that Cochran would say something like that. Cochran would never say anything like that because he knew that he had a very good chance on being hired by Simpson. Because Simpson hired Shapiro does not mean that Simpson as well as Shapiro knew that would need a black lawyer that was extremely well known. IMO, I think Cochran, like Scheck knew in their 'gut' they were going to be involved in the trial.

Also, Cochran also knew the LAPD and he knew the DA's office. I don't think he would have said something like that. I can see him saying something like the evidence appears to be very strong against him, but to say that he is obviously guilty---I doubt it, bad for business, IMO.

He never said it. That is just more gossip.

[GreenIce]

Telling an individual whom you believe is a friend in the confines of a vehicle is wholly different from telling millions of strangers on national television, which is exactly what Cora did and no amount of twisting is going to change that. In addition, I believe it was Nicole that actually originally told Cora about the evening.

Faye wrote about it in her book after Cora aired the news on television.

Kate

Kate,

I have never seen the interview of Cora stating this. For this reason, I can't comment on her motives or how or why she revealed this information. However, IMO, Faye Resnick wrote such a book that, IMO, their affair wasn't so bad compared to some of the other things she wrote in the book.

You are correct, Nicole did tell Faye about it.

I think it is important to remember that Cora came to believe Simpson committed the murders and for this reason, she was tossed out of the "circle", in other words, she didn't jump on the band wagon. Cora knew and saw the changes in Nicole, she knew Nicole's life was falling apart and IMO, she was the only friend who tried to do something about it.

Faye had many reasons to write a book, none of which had to do with Nicole, IMO. She also had every reason to trash anyone who was not the "Guilty" band wagon. She also had a reason to point a "possible" finger at Marcus Allen as well as point the finger at OJ Simpson.

One last thing, IMO, a lot more people read Faye's book then saw the interview Cora did. Also, Faye did not have to confirm the affair, she could have lied about it, even if it was just to protect Nicole's children and family.
Her affair Nicole, according to her, had nothing to do with anything.

I can't understand why Faye would have wrote the things that she unless she also wanted to point another finger at Nicole.

Again, just IMO.

[GreenIce]

He never said it. That is just more gossip.

Martin,

IMO ways, I look these types of things as I do when I speak to my son. People only hear what they want to hear or will interpet in a way that fits into their beliefs.

As a defense lawyer, IMO, it would be bad business for them to come out and pronounce guilt before the trial, IMO.

[GreenIce]

On CSNBC a private investigator said today "THE LAPD is the largest leaking police dept in America." " That they did a hugh leaking job during the OJ case and they are now doing it in the MJ case." "Leaking false info to the public"

Martin,

IMO, it appears to me "trials" start long before the first witness is called in the courtroom.

I have no problem with false leaks if there is a reason behind it. If they feel certain leaks might generate other leads. However, in the Simpson case, while I understand one or two by the LAPD, I don't understand any from the SID department.

IMO, most of the leaks in the Simpson case were done to fight any public support Simpson may have had. Gerald Uelman wrote how the American public felt before the release of the 911 tapes vs afterwords. Not only did it change dramatically, but it was at this point where the difference between the races was really noticeable.

[fgump2]

Here is the original post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldiva
IIRC Sometime after the trial, when someone on the street asked him if OJ was guilty he replied "what do you think"? He knew he worked to get a double murderer freed imo.

NOW. when do you think Cochran stopped working for oj.

I may have been confused when I posted. I thought you were referring to Cochran's quote of "it is obvious he is quilty", about a week or so after the killings. I am pretty sure that quote was published long before Cochran died, and he never denied it. Actually probably before the criminal trial began.

I don't see much signfigance to Cochran responding "what do you think?". That was an impulsive remark. I am sure he knew Simpson was guilty.

I consider it strange, but revealing that Cochran was willing to kick sand in Kim Goldman's face during the criminal trial, and never showed any sympathy for the Browns or Goldmans (not that I know of), but when Mr. Simpson lost the civil trial, Cochran said "He (Simpson) should accept it, and move on". Why, if the time line or anything else shows he is innocent?

[GreenIce]

I may have been confused when I posted. I thought you were referring to Cochran's quote of "it is obvious he is quilty", about a week or so after the killings. I am pretty sure that quote was published long before Cochran died, and he never denied it. Actually probably before the criminal trial began.

I don't see much signfigance to Cochran responding "what do you think?". That was an impulsive remark. I am sure he knew Simpson was guilty.

I consider it strange, but revealing that Cochran was willing to kick sand in Kim Goldman's face during the criminal trial, and never showed any sympathy for the Browns or Goldmans (not that I know of), but when Mr. Simpson lost the civil trial, Cochran said "He (Simpson) should accept it, and move on". Why, if the time line or anything else shows he is innocent?

fgump2,

Who is the "friend" who Cochran said this to and why is that person hiding from his claims? I doubt Cochran would have said that he was obviously guilty, especially knowing that he would play a role in the defense? Bad for business as well as bad for the black community.

JC did not kick sand in Kim's face. Again, he had nothing to gain by doing this, especially infront of the jury. Since you do not know if JC ever expressed condolences to either family, then you should not post about it. Please remember, the Goldmans would not accept condolences from their own extended family and friends. I highly doubt any overture of condolences coming from anyone associated with OJ Simpson was not going to be received.

BTW, did you know Clark and Goldman planned his rant and rave on the courthouse steps after the Fuhrman tapes? Did you know that Clark told another DA that the case was a looser but it was going to make her career?

If you read the Goldmans' book, Clark's book as well as saw some of the interviews, there was not a warm and fuzzy relationship between the DA and the victims' families.

One last thing, why no interest about the police sources who revealed Nicole's and OJ's blood was found on the socks before they were even sent out for testing? That is worth a discussion, not what a "friend" said that Cochran said, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe there is a defense lawyer in America that would tell the public
that his client was guilty.

At least, not and stay a practicing member of the bar.

[William Anthony]

Sleaziness is like beauty, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I do not believe that Cochran would say something like that. Cochran would never say anything like that because he knew that he had a very good chance on being hired by Simpson. Because Simpson hired Shapiro does not mean that Simpson as well as Shapiro knew that would need a black lawyer that was extremely well known. IMO, I think Cochran, like Scheck knew in their 'gut' they were going to be involved in the trial.

Also, Cochran also knew the LAPD and he knew the DA's office. I don't think he would have said something like that. I can see him saying something like the evidence appears to be very strong against him, but to say that he is obviously guilty---I doubt it, bad for business, IMO.

I totally agree and, although I am unfamiliar with the ethics of journalism, I know that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and it is debatable in legal decisions whether that privilege survives the client's death.

[William Anthony]

I don't see much signfigance to Cochran responding "what do you think?". That was an impulsive remark. I am sure he knew Simpson was guilty.

Spoken like someone that had a personal conversation with the magnificent one.

[Kate Sachel]

It would be helpful if you notified posters that your post is your opinions. Some may believe it is true.

Hence the fact that she began her post with "I have always thought". This clearly indicates that it is her thought process and that it is not something she is stating as fact.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I have never seen the interview of Cora stating this. For this reason, I can't comment on her motives or how or why she revealed this information. However, IMO, Faye Resnick wrote such a book that, IMO, their affair wasn't so bad compared to some of the other things she wrote in the book.

You are correct, Nicole did tell Faye about it.

I think it is important to remember that Cora came to believe Simpson committed the murders and for this reason, she was tossed out of the "circle", in other words, she didn't jump on the band wagon. Cora knew and saw the changes in Nicole, she knew Nicole's life was falling apart and IMO, she was the only friend who tried to do something about it.

Faye had many reasons to write a book, none of which had to do with Nicole, IMO. She also had every reason to trash anyone who was not the "Guilty" band wagon. She also had a reason to point a "possible" finger at Marcus Allen as well as point the finger at OJ Simpson.

One last thing, IMO, a lot more people read Faye's book then saw the interview Cora did. Also, Faye did not have to confirm the affair, she could have lied about it, even if it was just to protect Nicole's children and family.
Her affair Nicole, according to her, had nothing to do with anything.

I can't understand why Faye would have wrote the things that she unless she also wanted to point another finger at Nicole.

Again, just IMO.

Does it matter if more people read Faye's book than watched Cora's interview? The point is that there are people on this forum who take pleasure in trashing Faye for writing about it in her book but who choose not to say a word about the fact that the information was first made public by Cora.

I've heard a lot from you on this forum on the biases of the "guilty" camp, will I ever read an acknowledgment that the biases happen to run both ways?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Hence the fact that she began her post with "I have always thought". This clearly indicates that it is her thought process and that it is not something she is stating as fact.

Kate

I have a technical disagreement with your statement. I do not think the post indicates any thought process, only that a thought was had. :)

[Kate Sachel]

fgump2,

Who is the "friend" who Cochran said this to and why is that person hiding from his claims? I doubt Cochran would have said that he was obviously guilty, especially knowing that he would play a role in the defense? Bad for business as well as bad for the black community.

JC did not kick sand in Kim's face. Again, he had nothing to gain by doing this, especially infront of the jury. Since you do not know if JC ever expressed condolences to either family, then you should not post about it. Please remember, the Goldmans would not accept condolences from their own extended family and friends. I highly doubt any overture of condolences coming from anyone associated with OJ Simpson was not going to be received.

BTW, did you know Clark and Goldman planned his rant and rave on the courthouse steps after the Fuhrman tapes? Did you know that Clark told another DA that the case was a looser but it was going to make her career?

If you read the Goldmans' book, Clark's book as well as saw some of the interviews, there was not a warm and fuzzy relationship between the DA and the victims' families.

One last thing, why no interest about the police sources who revealed Nicole's and OJ's blood was found on the socks before they were even sent out for testing? That is worth a discussion, not what a "friend" said that Cochran said, IMO.

Can you explain to me what you mean by saying that the Goldman's would not accept condolences from their own extended family and friends? I own their book, and it is filled with the stories of the massive support system that was in place with their friends and family.

Additionally, can you tell me what DA Marcia Clark advised that the case was a loser to and the source of that information?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Does it matter if more people read Faye's book than watched Cora's interview? The point is that there are people on this forum who take pleasure in trashing Faye for writing about it in her book but who choose not to say a word about the fact that the information was first made public by Cora.

I've heard a lot from you on this forum on the biases of the "guilty" camp, will I ever read an acknowledgment that the biases happen to run both ways?

Kate

I do believe that the Gs out number both the NGs and the reasonable doubters. Therefore, since I have said that all people have prejudices/biases, I think it only a matter of mathematics that there would be more posts, noting the biases of the Gs.

[Kate Sachel]

I do believe that the Gs out number both the NGs and the reasonable doubters. Therefore, since I have said that all people have prejudices/biases, I think it only a matter of mathematics that there would be more posts, noting the biases of the Gs.

If that is the thought process you are comfortable with.

Kate

[William Anthony]

If that is the thought process you are comfortable with.

Kate

It was an abbreviated form of my thought process, which I believe you know and can follow. What I am saying is that the Gs must ignore all the cross examinations done by the defense, all the evidence presented by the defense and all the reasons presented by the defense as to why the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted and come up with could haves, would haves, if and entirely possibles to make the prosecution's case fit. There have been so many posts by the Gs doing just that and so many posts blaming the defense lawyers and the jury for the prosecution's failure by the Gs and, consequently, there have been so many posts pointing to the biases held by the Gs, whereas, the NG's and resonable doubters need only remind the Gs of the verdict.

[martin II]

I may have been confused when I posted. I thought you were referring to Cochran's quote of "it is obvious he is quilty", about a week or so after the killings. I am pretty sure that quote was published long before Cochran died, and he never denied it. Actually probably before the criminal trial began.

I don't see much signfigance to Cochran responding "what do you think?". That was an impulsive remark. I am sure he knew Simpson was guilty.

I consider it strange, but revealing that Cochran was willing to kick sand in Kim Goldman's face during the criminal trial, and never showed any sympathy for the Browns or Goldmans (not that I know of), but when Mr. Simpson lost the civil trial, Cochran said "He (Simpson) should accept it, and move on". Why, if the time line or anything else shows he is innocent?

From his speeches i have heard Cochran say out of his mouth .oj was absolutely not guilty because the time line did not allow it. So your clain is wrong.

[Kate Sachel]

It was an abbreviated form of my thought process, which I believe you know and can follow. What I am saying is that the Gs must ignore all the cross examinations done by the defense, all the evidence presented by the defense and all the reasons presented by the defense as to why the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted and come up with could haves, would haves, if and entirely possibles to make the prosecution's case fit. There have been so many posts by the Gs doing just that and so many posts blaming the defense lawyers and the jury for the prosecution's failure by the Gs and, consequently, there have been so many posts pointing to the biases held by the Gs, whereas, the NG's and resonable doubters need only remind the Gs of the verdict.

And I have read just as many things from the "not guilty" camp that scream of could and would haves, biases, and blatant inability or unwillingness to admit the obvious.

I hear so much of alleged, or in some case, proven lies on the end of prosecution witnesses and not one person from the "not guilty" camp cares to address the lies of OJ Simpson himself in deposition and on the witness stand. The same excuse is always proffered.

In addition, we have one poster who, despite theirs claims of knowledge of the law, continues to make statements that any opinion that OJ Simpson is guilty is simply "wrong" because he was acquitted. As you and I both know, the law states no such thing and the law does not claim OJ Simpson innocent.

Kate

[martin II]

I may have been confused when I posted. I thought you were referring to Cochran's quote of "it is obvious he is quilty", about a week or so after the killings. I am pretty sure that quote was published long before Cochran died, and he never denied it. Actually probably before the criminal trial began.

I don't see much signfigance to Cochran responding "what do you think?". That was an impulsive remark. I am sure he knew Simpson was guilty.

I consider it strange, but revealing that Cochran was willing to kick sand in Kim Goldman's face during the criminal trial, and never showed any sympathy for the Browns or Goldmans (not that I know of), but when Mr. Simpson lost the civil trial, Cochran said "He (Simpson) should accept it, and move on". Why, if the time line or anything else shows he is innocent?

Its always helpful to read before making a attack on something that you don't understand.

[William Anthony]

And I have read just as many things from the "not guilty" camp that scream of could and would haves, biases, and blatant inability or unwillingness to admit the obvious.

I hear so much of alleged, or in some case, proven lies on the end of prosecution witnesses and not one person from the "not guilty" camp cares to address the lies of OJ Simpson himself in deposition and on the witness stand. The same excuse is always proffered.

In addition, we have one poster who, despite theirs claims of knowledge of the law, continues to make statements that any opinion that OJ Simpson is guilty is simply "wrong" because he was acquitted. As you and I both know, the law states no such thing and the law does not claim OJ Simpson innocent.

Kate

Let me begin with your last psragraph and state that, as I read the poster's post, he stated that the not guilty verdict proved that those who thought Simpson was guilty were wrong. I previously responded that, if the poster was speaking purely in a legal sense, he was correct. Since the verdict was not guilty, it negates any finding of guilt. I do not recall the poster posting that Simpson was innocent. However, there is merit to your post if the poster was speaking to the vulgar understanding of guilt and non guilt.

I think that there is much more disdain taken when it is proven that a prosecution witness lies compared to a defendant who is thought or proven to lie. In fact, one might think that in a civil case it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to provide evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant lied, while in a criminal trial that is not the case, because a defendant is not obligated to say anything. I think that when one understands those differences it is easy to understand the disparity in the disdain shown.

[Kate Sachel]

Let me begin with your last psragraph and state that, as I read the poster's post, he stated that the not guilty verdict proved that those who thought Simpson was guilty were wrong. I previously responded that, if the poster was speaking purely in a legal sense, he was correct. Since the verdict was not guilty, it negates any finding of guilt. I do not recall the poster posting that Simpson was innocent. However, there is merit to your post if the poster was speaking to the vulgar understanding of guilt and non guilt.

I think that there is much more disdain taken when it is proven that a prosecution witness lies compared to a defendant who is thought or proven to lie. In fact, one might think that in a civil case it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to provide evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant lied, while in a criminal trial that is not the case, because a defendant is not obligated to say anything. I think that when one understands those differences it is easy to understand the disparity in the disdain shown.

It doesn't work, not even from a legal standpoint. A jury can never find a defendant innocent, they do not have the power to do so and innocence is all that negates guilt. The "not guilty" verdict only equates into not legally proven guilty". It says nothing of true guilt or innocence and that is why the foundation of our criminal justice system lies on justice rather than truth.

Kate

[William Anthony]

It doesn't work, not even from a legal standpoint. A jury can never find a defendant innocent, they do not have the power to do so and innocence is all that negates guilt. The "not guilty" verdict only equates into not legally proven guilty". It says nothing of true guilt or innocence and that is why the foundation of our criminal justice system lies on justice rather than truth.

Kate

I have missed our debates on the law.:) The statement of truth or verdict in a criminal trial is not guilty as charged or guilty as charged-shortened to guilty and not guilty. The poster did not claim that Simpson was innocent in the post to which you referred and I responded. A not guilty as charged verdict negates a finding of guilty as charged or not guilty negates guilty, as the prosecution only gets one bite at the apple. A defendant does not plead innocent as you are aware. we should not confuse the legal meaning of not guilty with the vulgar meaning of not guilty, which is why I said, if the poster was speaking in a purely legal sense, he was correct.

[Kate Sachel]

I have missed our debates on the law.:) The statement of truth or verdict in a criminal trial is not guilty as charged or guilty as charged-shortened to guilty and not guilty. The poster did not claim that Simpson was innocent in the post to which you referred and I responded. A not guilty as charged verdict negates a finding of guilty as charged or not guilty negates guilty, as the prosecution only gets one bite at the apple. A defendant does not plead innocent as you are aware. we should not confuse the legal meaning of not guilty with the vulgar meaning of not guilty, which is why I said, if the poster was speaking in a purely legal sense, he was correct.

The debates on law have indeed been interesting.

Kate

[Hotwater]

Changes are coming.....


Please note - Posts like the one above will no longer be tolerated in the OJ discussion. Warnings will be sparse and ban's will last anywhere from 3-10 days or permanently if you choose not to follow the rules.

Rules will be posted in the next day or two.

Hotwater

ETA: Above post deleted.

[Kate Sachel]

Changes are coming.....


Please note - Posts like the one above will no longer be tolerated in the OJ discussion. Warnings will be sparse and ban's will last anywhere from 3-10 days or permanently if you choose not to follow the rules.

Rules will be posted in the next day or two.

Hotwater

ETA: Above post deleted.

Did you just delete the post made by "The Boys"?

Thank you for that.

Kate

[GreenIce]

Can you explain to me what you mean by saying that the Goldman's would not accept condolences from their own extended family and friends? I own their book, and it is filled with the stories of the massive support system that was in place with their friends and family.

Additionally, can you tell me what DA Marcia Clark advised that the case was a loser to and the source of that information?

Kate

Kate,

Mr. Goldman said several times that he was not able to find any comfort in anyone's condolences. He knew people were supportive, he acknowledged that he also understood the support his family got from the public was unique. However, he made it clear, that there is not better place for Ron to be then on earth and with his family. I think it is important to remember that the Browns have Sydney and Justin, the best parts of Nicole, IMO, I think turning to their faith helped them deal with this. The Goldmans have nothing in that regard. I have always posted, many, many years ago that Kim Goldman was going to have a harder time regarding her brother's death after she became a parent.

And just to be clear, it appears to me that the Goldmans tried very hard to accpet condolences but they just found no comfort in them. In times like this, some people turn to their faith, who perhaps never turned to it before and other people who have been very active in their faith can turn against it during such an event as this.

Clark's comments about the case being a loser is in Joe Bosco's book, "Problem of Evidence".