Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

or maybe not!

". . .The new owner, an unnamed investment banker who bought the property for nearly $4 million, plans to build a new house in its place. He was recently quoted as saying that the house needed so many improvements that it was cheaper to demolish and rebuild. . ." :chicken:

Uh oh, this reminds me of the broken gate and the rusty washing machine...shocking. :eek:

[weezer]

Uh oh, this reminds me of the broken gate and the rusty washing machine...shocking. :eek:

and the demolition happened AFTER the $200,000 in renovations. my oh my

[Its just me]

IJM,

I totally agree with you about Ito and his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth on certain issue. IMO, this is one of them.

However, it appears to me that he does not address the fact of who RG was and why he was talking to Simpson. He had to get permission from the jailer's minister or whatever he is called and then he had to get Simpson's persmission to see him.

IMOO Judge Ito "had" to address who RG was because OJ couldn't claim and didn't have the right to privacy with just anyone walking in to the jail to talk to him.

Attorney/Client right to privacy Right to privacy with minister, preacher, priest etc....and I think right to privacy with doctor may be included.

[GreenIce]

Here is something interesting:

Simpson Distraught in Jail Visit, Deputy Says - Trial: Hearing deals with admissibility of defendant's conversation with Rosie Grier that officer says he overheard.
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS|December 15, 1994A crying and distraught O.J. Simpson blurted out two sentences to friend and minister Rosey Grier during an emotional jailhouse visit Nov. 13, according to testimony Wednesday by a sheriff's deputy who says he overheard a snippet of their conversation.

Although Deputy Jeff Stuart did not repeat what he said he overheard, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman questioned him at length during a cryptic hearing in which prosecutors and defense attorneys were forced to argue about a statement that neither has read.


Hodgman was hoping to show that the conversation was so loud that Simpson and Grier waived the privilege that normally protects the privacy of discussions between an inmate and a clergyman. Simpson--who has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman--seemed relaxed and cheerful as Wednesday's hearing unfolded, chatting quietly with his lawyers as the deputy testified.


How could Hodgman make a motion when he doesn't even know what the deputy said he heard?


How desperate were the DA's?????

[tv]

and the demolition happened AFTER the $200,000 in renovations. my oh my

Imagine that. Wonder what was renovated? It sounds to me like the place was falling down. :shrug:

[weezer]

Imagine that. Wonder what was renovated? It sounds to me like the place was falling down. :shrug:

the article said the house was very dated. maybe when Nicole did the original decorating? my goodness -- that would have been years and years before.

[GreenIce]

IMOO Judge Ito "had" to address who RG was because OJ couldn't claim and didn't have the right to privacy with just anyone walking in to the jail to talk to him.

Attorney/Client right to privacy Right to privacy with minister, preacher, priest etc....and I think right to privacy with doctor may be included.

IJM,

I just read something interesting. I am pretty sure that OJ Simpson did convert and he is a Roman Catholic. He was asked about the Grier Conversation in his depo and testified that he assumed the room was bugged and he that it was not a Roman Catholic type confessional.

OJ's first wife is Catholic and we know that Nicole was also Catholic. We know that at the time of the murders, Arnelle Simpson was also a practicing Catholic, at least she attended church. We also know that Nicole wanted her children to go to Catholic Schools and that ever after her death, OJ enrolled the kids in a Catholic school in Florida.

I think this whole issue is a red herring.

[tv]

the article said the house was very dated. maybe when Nicole did the original decorating? my goodness -- that would have been years and years before.

Yes, it would have. I'm a little surprised that someone like OJ Simpson who is all about his image would tolerate his house being outdated.

[weezer]

Yes, it would have. I'm a little surprised that someone like OJ Simpson who is all about his image would tolerate his house being outdated.

I think it is another instance of the real orenthal showing through -- outward appearance belies the real thing.

[Its just me]

I believe Judge Ito was dead wrong on this. Since when does anyone have an expectation of privacy in jail? The only time situation I can think of is when an inmate is talking to his lawyer. Inmates use the bathroom in front of others and phone conversations are recorded and monitored. Being 'lulled into a false sense of security' was a weak argument from the defense but Ito agreed with their faulty reasoning.

I think a person has the same right to privacy with a minister as they do with an attorney.

I see Judge Ito as dead wrong also....he ruled OJ waived his right to privacy and "without" the right to privacy I can't see what Ito based his decision to keep the testimony out of the trial.

I also totally agree with fbgweezer.....If there was nothing to hide why argue the presumed right to privacy with OJ and his minister to keep the testimony out. Why not let the guard give his testimony and use Rosie to knock the block from under the guard’s testimony. The case was full of the defense claiming LE corruption....why not use this incident to put icing on the cake and show there were real nanners in the puddin'. Because the defense did argue to keep out the testimony....I believe the guard was telling the truth. Nothing else makes a lick of sense to me.

[weezer]

I think a person has the same right to privacy with a minister as they do with an attorney.

I see Judge Ito as dead wrong also....he ruled OJ waived his right to privacy and "without" the right to privacy I can't see what Ito based his decision to keep the testimony out of the trial.

I also totally agree with fbgweezer.....If there was nothing to hide why argue the presumed right to privacy with OJ and his minister to keep the testimony out. Why not let the guard give his testimony and use Rosie to knock the block from under the guard’s testimony. The case was full of the defense claiming LE corruption....why not use this incident to put icing on the cake and show there were real nanners in the puddin'. Because the defense did argue to keep out the testimony....I believe the guard was telling the truth. Nothing else makes a lick of sense to me.

:beer::beer:

[Its just me]

Here is something interesting:

Simpson Distraught in Jail Visit, Deputy Says - Trial: Hearing deals with admissibility of defendant's conversation with Rosie Grier that officer says he overheard.
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS|December 15, 1994A crying and distraught O.J. Simpson blurted out two sentences to friend and minister Rosey Grier during an emotional jailhouse visit Nov. 13, according to testimony Wednesday by a sheriff's deputy who says he overheard a snippet of their conversation.

Although Deputy Jeff Stuart did not repeat what he said he overheard, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman questioned him at length during a cryptic hearing in which prosecutors and defense attorneys were forced to argue about a statement that neither has read.


Hodgman was hoping to show that the conversation was so loud that Simpson and Grier waived the privilege that normally protects the privacy of discussions between an inmate and a clergyman. Simpson--who has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman--seemed relaxed and cheerful as Wednesday's hearing unfolded, chatting quietly with his lawyers as the deputy testified.


How could Hodgman make a motion when he doesn't even know what the deputy said he heard?


How desperate were the DA's?????

The same can be said about the defense arguing it not be part of the trial. Neither may not have read the actual statement but I will bet the farm they all knew exactly what was going on.

I understand why the guard was not allowed to say what he overheard Simpson tell RG in an open court hearing to determine if what OJ said was admissable.

[GreenIce]

I think a person has the same right to privacy with a minister as they do with an attorney.

I see Judge Ito as dead wrong also....he ruled OJ waived his right to privacy and "without" the right to privacy I can't see what Ito based his decision to keep the testimony out of the trial.

I also totally agree with fbgweezer.....If there was nothing to hide why argue the presumed right to privacy with OJ and his minister to keep the testimony out. Why not let the guard give his testimony and use Rosie to knock the block from under the guard’s testimony. The case was full of the defense claiming LE corruption....why not use this incident to put icing on the cake and show there were real nanners in the puddin'. Because the defense did argue to keep out the testimony....I believe the guard was telling the truth. Nothing else makes a lick of sense to me.

IJM,

In order to have the guard testify, wouldn't he have to prove what the conversation was about? Wouldn't he have to say something like he heard RG ask OJ if he was guilty of the crimes?

As it stands now, it appears to me that the guard, only hearing very little converstation has assumed that Simpson and Grier were talking about the murders and Simpson's role in it.

IMO, I think many of you who believe this should have been allowed into evidence would not have the same position if you or your loved one was in a similar position. Just because Mr. Simpson was accused and was being kept in jail, is not proof that he is guilty of the crimes that he has been accused of. Any more then you or anyone else in that position---which is why we have trials.

I also think your position of allowing the guard to testify and let the defense deflect it or whatever is very, very dangerous and it threatens our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system. Many G's have posted that the defense should have conducted their own tests and/or should have proved Simpson innocent is also very dangerous.

Would you like to have to prove your innocence if you were accused of a crime? What about if it was one of your children who was in the same situation Simpson was in? Do we want to change our system to guilty until proven innocent?

IMO, Ito was giving life to an issue that never should have been one. It was clearly a violation of Mr. Simpson's and Mr. Grier's rights. Had Mr. Simpson made these types of comments to his cell mate, then that is a different story and for that stupid act alone, he should have been given the gift of the death penality without the benefit of a trial, IMO.

I don't believe in the death penality but I do believe in the gift of death when it is obvious this person can't protect themselves from themselves. Kind of like that guy in China who was upset when he went to the Panda cage and got bit. His defense was that he only wanted a hug from the Panda. Granted, he was drunk at the time but don't you have to ask yourself when did it occur to this man that it would be a good idea to go into a wild animal's home and get a little love and if he is released into society, what else might he think is a good idea? I guess it is just me:)

[GreenIce]

The same can be said about the defense arguing it not be part of the trial. Neither may not have read the actual statement but I will bet the farm they all knew exactly what was going on.

I understand why the guard was not allowed to say what he overheard Simpson tell RG in an open court hearing to determine if what OJ said was admissable.

IJM,

Yes, the defense did know what was going on, their client was being denied his rights and the state was trying to change the rules. You are making assumptions about what the guard over heard. It doesn't matter what he overheard. The fact is RG is minister and whatever was said, even if was discussing the weekends football games and scores, is still privilege.

Also, what about any conversations he had with the minister when he declared himself innocent? If you allow one, then don't you have to allow all?

[GreenIce]

As far as the jury and the judge was concerned the trip was very useful. The prosecution did nothing to stop it.

Martin,

IIRC, the DA's wanted this trip. They only changed their mind after it was a total bust for them. The fact that the Bundy condo being completely empty backfired on them.

However, IMO, the most important thing the jurors got out of it was the outside at both locations. I think the jurors were waiting for Clark to prove how the glove could have gotten back there without leaving a trace of evidence as well as what caused those thumps.

IMO, it appears to me that the thumps Kato heard had nothing to do with the murders. I believe those who gave interviews all believed the glove was planted so if they believe that, then the thumps mean nothing. IMO.

[Its just me]

IJM,

In order to have the guard testify, wouldn't he have to prove what the conversation was about? Wouldn't he have to say something like he heard RG ask OJ if he was guilty of the crimes?

As it stands now, it appears to me that the guard, only hearing very little converstation has assumed that Simpson and Grier were talking about the murders and Simpson's role in it.

IMO, I think many of you who believe this should have been allowed into evidence would not have the same position if you or your loved one was in a similar position. Just because Mr. Simpson was accused and was being kept in jail, is not proof that he is guilty of the crimes that he has been accused of. Any more then you or anyone else in that position---which is why we have trials.

I also think your position of allowing the guard to testify and let the defense deflect it or whatever is very, very dangerous and it threatens our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system. Many G's have posted that the defense should have conducted their own tests and/or should have proved Simpson innocent is also very dangerous.

Would you like to have to prove your innocence if you were accused of a crime? What about if it was one of your children who was in the same situation Simpson was in? Do we want to change our system to guilty until proven innocent?

IMO, Ito was giving life to an issue that never should have been one. It was clearly a violation of Mr. Simpson's and Mr. Grier's rights. Had Mr. Simpson made these types of comments to his cell mate, then that is a different story and for that stupid act alone, he should have been given the gift of the death penality without the benefit of a trial, IMO.

I don't believe in the death penality but I do believe in the gift of death when it is obvious this person can't protect themselves from themselves. Kind of like that guy in China who was upset when he went to the Panda cage and got bit. His defense was that he only wanted a hug from the Panda. Granted, he was drunk at the time but don't you have to ask yourself when did it occur to this man that it would be a good idea to go into a wild animal's home and get a little love and if he is released into society, what else might he think is a good idea? I guess it is just me:)

IMHOO and I stress IMHOO. The judge had to determine if the conversation was relevant to the Simpson case. Apparently it had some bearing or it never would have been before Judge Ito. My belief is what a person says to their minister is privileged information unless they waive the right to that privilege...Judge Ito ruled Simpson waived his right to his privilege of privacy with RG. Not me.... but it is my opinion that since what the guard overheard was ruled "not privileged" it should have been presented to the jury for them to decide and NOT allowing it is what’s a threat to our justice system is. The defendant has rights that should not be denied but so does the victim. A trial is not just about the defendant.... there is such a thing as "justice for the victims" OJ simply gave up his rights when he got "loud" enough to be heard by someone other than RG.

Green Ice....If I or my child were accused of a crime that I did not commit I would not only want but would expect my attorney to present in court everything possible within the law to convince the jury I had absolutely nothing to do with the crime I was accused of. If we were guilty I'd expect my attorney to do everything possible within the law to create doubt in order to possibly get a Not guilty by reasonable doubt. On the flip side if my child was murdered....I would want justice and all evidence that should be admissible be allowed to be presented to the jury....IMHOO our justice system is a two way street. The defendant and the victim.

[William Anthony]

And them not believing Park is a mystery to me. He was a very credible witness IMO. What reason did he have to lie, be untruthfull, or confussed. Surely he knew what he did and what he saw.

As far as deliberations.... short as it was for a 9 month trial ....I'll not comment.

If you read his testimonies and most of the discrepancies have been posted, then either he was confused, lied or coached, which IMHO the discrepancies are a result of options 2 & 3.

[Its just me]

IJM,

Yes, the defense did know what was going on, their client was being denied his rights and the state was trying to change the rules. You are making assumptions about what the guard over heard. It doesn't matter what he overheard. The fact is RG is minister and whatever was said, even if was discussing the weekends football games and scores, is still privilege.

Also, what about any conversations he had with the minister when he declared himself innocent? If you allow one, then don't you have to allow all?

GreenIce. The State was not trying to change the rules about anything only the opposite...they were following the laws for court room proceedings. They had a witness they felt had credible information against the defendant to present to the jury. The legal process was followed to get it before Judge Ito who ruled the conversation between OJ and RG was NO longer privileged when OJ spoke loud enough for the guard to hear him. That is the law or Judge Ito would not have ruled OJ waived his rights to privacy with RC. I'm NOT making an assumption about anything...its public information what the guard said he overheard OJ and RG say. It's also posted somewhere on this message board IIRC. What I'm arguing is NOTHING beyond the guards testimony should have been allowed in court because JUDGE ITO ruled OJ waived his right to privacy meaning the part of OJ's and RG's conversation the guard heard was No Longer privileged .

If OJ had a conversation with the minister declaring himself innocent it has absolutely no bearing on what the guard overheard if he didn't hear OJ declaring himself innocent. If the innocent conversation happened IMHOO it would have been left up to the defense attorneys, OJ and RG to decide what they wanted to do with that piece of evidence and left up to Judge Ito to decide what they were allowed to do with it.

If OJ was denied his rights it was Judge Ito who is responsible....he made the decision that OJ waived (gave up) his rights to privacy (I agree with Ito) and IMHOO he blundered by not allowing the guard to testify before the jury.... and as I posted before I've read legal opinions that agree with me about the blunder.

I’m not arguing about this anymore. I think I’ve been clear in my opinions

[William Anthony]

Not letting the guard testify was another example of Judge Ito bowing to Cochran. We saw it over and over during the trial. I hope Judge Ito has slept well these past 15 years over the results of some of his defense pandering.

I think judge Ito displayed his knowledge of the rules of evidence. :)

[William Anthony]

". . .ms. Lewis: Your honor, there is one possible exception. The green chain link fencing that is around rockingham, the jurors need to be told at some point that that was not present on june 12th. And if you will recall, it extends to around the neighbor's property.

The court: We can deal with that later. That's something that i think that the people can handle during the course of their case in chief because the photographs of the rockingham scene the day of the incident do not have that. Their view does. You can ask the detectives was that there at the time.

Ms. Lewis: The court --

the court: I don't think it's appropriate for the court to instruct. That is the point i'm making.

Ms. Lewis: I wasn't going to ask the court to do that. I thought it might be appropriate for the bailiff to break the code of silence for that one purpose.

The court: No, i don't think that would be appropriate. And in any event, that outside around the rockingham property is really inconsequential because nobody talks about anything going on the lawn there.

Ms. Lewis: The access to the side of the walkway of mr. Simpson's property however is going to be viewed and which does have that restricted access somewhat.

The court: It's a non-issue at this point. Anything else before we talk with the jurors? . . ."

sounds like ito didn't think what park or could not see was considered a problem by him. Hmmmm

"ms. Lewis: I wasn't going to ask the court to do that. I thought it might be appropriate for the bailiff to break the code of silence for that one purpose.

The court: No, i don't think that would be appropriate. And in any event, that outside around the rockingham property is really inconsequential because nobody talks about anything going on the lawn there."

[William Anthony]

The field trip was pointless unless conditions were as close as possible to the conditions of that night. All it did was enhance the defense's case.

So, the prosecution got out smarted once more by the magnificent one.:)

[William Anthony]

". . .mr. Douglas: Your honor, mr. Simpson tells me that the poster on the bathroom door has always been there. I was not here on june the 13th. So i am unable to adequately respond specifically to what pictures were up and where they were. I don't know for a fact. I think that it's very important that the jury be able to see the family room area for issues that we dealt with on friday. Certainly there were arguments and objections similar to those that are being raised now lodged at that point. The court considered both arguments of counsel and the court ruled that the jury view was appropriate. I still think the jury view is appropriate. If in fact there are specific pictures to which there may be some objection, i will leave it to the court's discretion. You will have to ask for specific --

ms. Clark: Your honor, i was here on the 13th and i know --

mr. Cochran: I would not ask miss clark to tell you anything. Gigi, the housekeeper, she would be the one to tell you. I have no objection to your honor talking to her.

The court: All right. I am also concerned about the fire in the fireplace. Hey, nice homey touch, but not necessary today.

Mr. Cochran: I have no problem, your honor. They can be extinguished.

Ms. Clark: Your honor, i really want to renew this objection. The fact that the jurors would like to see kato kaelin's room, that makes a lot of sense. There's testimony as to that. There's an issue as to that. The south walkway, i think there are issues to what can be seen from there. That can be adequately depicted in photographs. But to go into the defendant's house is totally unnecessary. It has no evidentiary value to any testimony that we are going to be taking in the case. There is nothing in contention. The defense is not going to be telling the jury we didn't find the socks in the bedroom. That's not going to be an issue. And the photographs depicted completely inside the house have no evidentiary value in this case, your honor.

The court: Let me ask the housekeeper. Can you tell me with some accuracy what photographs have been placed in the residence since mr. Simpson's arrest?

The housekeeper: What photograph?

The court: Which photographs have been -- were placed in the residence after mr. Simpson's arrest; for example, the ones by his bed?

The housekeeper: There's some picture already on his bed before, you know. There is picture there on his bed.

The court: Do you know what the pictures were?

The housekeeper: Just add his mother picture there.

The court: That's the only one that's been added?

The housekeeper: Yes. And his mother picture, the one in the back.

The court: Okay. No other pictures have been added to the bedroom?

The housekeeper: No.

Ms. Clark: Your honor, why don't we have the detective who is here --

mr. Cochran: The housekeeper would know. Gigi is not going to misrepresent anything.

Ms. Clark: You are asking her for specific memory of specific things she wouldn't necessarily pay attention to. She's not a detective. She's a housekeeper.

The court: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Clark: I'm talking about the walls as well.

The court: Thank you. I understand that. I'm going to direct that the picture of the defendant and his mother be removed during the course of the jury view. I am going to direct that the fires be extinguished. I'm going to instruct the jurors to ignore any photographs that they see. Anything else before we get started?

Ms. Clark: The people's objection stands.

The court: Noted. . ."

"The court: Thank you. I understand that. I'm going to direct that the picture of the defendant and his mother be removed during the course of the jury view. I am going to direct that the fires be extinguished. I'm going to instruct the jurors to ignore any photographs that they see. Anything else before we get started?"

[William Anthony]

BTW, if you go to newslibrary.com, search on Rosey Grier OJ , you will see a listing for the article I was talking about. On my search it is Number 5, Westside Today, April 29, 2005. You can purchase the article. I did. What I posted earlier was in the article. OJ did not confess to Rosey Grier.

Thanks again.

[William Anthony]

sorry but I have no desire to 'purchase' an article to prove your post.

The truth will set you free but the truth is not always free (a Williamism).;)

[William Anthony]

Seriously I mean NO disrespect to Rosie....I admire him tremendously for even mentioning God. Many have no desire to hear about God much less tell about Him...I don't personally know Rosie so I can't put full faith in what he has stated.......because it's a fact many claiming to be men/women of God have lied big time. Following God DOES NOT make one perfect....only a desire to grow in perfection.

IMHOO It's still one man's word against another man's. The circumstances surrounding the situation continues to make be have more confidence in the deputy/guard's statement.

Do you know the guard personally?

[William Anthony]

I thought I would enter a quote from Wikipedia

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. Both he and a jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled that he didn't mean to do it, after which Grier had urged him to come clean. Ito ruled that the evidence could not be allowed in court.
I wasn't able to find anything in the transcrips on this.
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

In Bugliosi's book he wrote that Ito ruled that it wasn't privileged communication, but he ruled it inadmissable because Simpson had been lulled into a false sense of security.

VB wrote that the prisoners and their visitors are told that if they talk in a voice of normal loudness, they won't be overheard, but that Simpson shouted. Bugliosi worked in LA both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, so he should know the rules.

Some posters have questioned Bugliosi's integrity. That's OK, I have questioned the integrity of some of the defense people. A reviewer from the American Bar association, in the Appellate Practice Journal wroe this about his book:
Overwhelmingly convincing... One can be sure that this is the best book that will ever be written on the OJ Simpson murder trial.

I think Rantala's book was probably just as good.

Greenice and Martin have both questioned Bugliosi's integrity. My guess is that they have nothing to go on except that they disagree with what he wrote.
I would guess he sold more books than all the dream team lawyers put together, which doesn't prove his integrity, but does take the steam out of the charge that he acted and wrote out of jealousy.

If Grier did say that Simpson didn't confess, then it is odd that he waited so long to speak up.

The waiver of the privilege must be knowing and voluntary, if there was a waiver, which makes what VB wrote a matter of nonsense, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

Your opinion is based on false information and you refuse to admit that someone you have a great infatuation for was proven to have lied under oath.

bobaugust

You see now you are calling me a liar. Please refrain from so doing, as I am much too old to carry on an infatuation with anyone. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly informed you of such you continue to say I do, thereby, indicating I am a liar. My emotions for Ms. Arnelle go far beyond infatuation and are deeply rooted in a mature recognition that all passion, not matter how intensely felt, may not be reciprocated by the object of one's passion and, thus, to admire from afar, without feeling any desire to be with that person, is something far different from infatuation. The ones proven to have lied by the video and their own testimonies were the three detectives, IMHO. I see you have not posted anything to support your false accusation that I claimed anyone lied and I have said that MF lied but that was the court's finding.

[William Anthony]

I am unaware of any evidence that Arnelle Simpson had a cell phone in June 1994 or as they were called then, a car phone.

I don’t believe telephone bills show incoming calls unless they are collect calls, do you believe they do?

bobaugust

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Reports/cellr.txt

Yes.

http://mowabb.com/ai/archives/005936.html

[William Anthony]

I rely on the fact that five witnesses impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story and proved that she lied.

I rely on the technology, which proves that the nervous, sleepy, mistaken witnesses prone to human error, were impeached, showing they lied, IMHO, and showed that Ms. Arnelle told the truth.

[William Anthony]

The way I understand it (LOL which may actually be the joke for today) OJ waived his right to privacy when he became loud enough to be heard by a third party. I personally think that would not include any eavesdroppers and in my opinion we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility to "protect" the privacy we are entitled to....OJ didn't do that when he got loud.

I don't know the legal terms....but I'm thinking the defense argued the right to privacy and OJ presumed he had it when he was talking to Rosie. I guess OJ presumed he had the right to privacy no matter how loud he became.

IMHOO Judge Ito was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I've read a few legal opinions on this and I may have it all screwed up but I think Ito ruling OJ waived his right to privacy and not allowing it to go before the court was a blunder. The information I've read stated Rosie and the guard testified before Ito so there had to be enough evidence that OJ became loud enough to waive his right to privacy where he intended to do so or not. I didn't intend to run that stop sign but I did and I got a ticket.

Just an opinion in my own language and not intended to be argued before CL court of legal terms.

Knowing and voluntary.

[William Anthony]

I believe Judge Ito was dead wrong on this. Since when does anyone have an expectation of privacy in jail? The only time situation I can think of is when an inmate is talking to his lawyer. Inmates use the bathroom in front of others and phone conversations are recorded and monitored. Being 'lulled into a false sense of security' was a weak argument from the defense but Ito agreed with their faulty reasoning.

How about when an inmate is talking to a member of the clergy or a psychiatrist or certain counselors?

[William Anthony]

I can actually see where the criminal defense point came from but what I don't understand is the 'why' of the argument. If my client was on trial for a double murder and my defense is based on accusing LE of planting/lying/framing, I'd put someone that had the recognition as a credible as Grier up there in a second to prove my case. :shrug: Unless of course I knew the truth. ;)

Who bore the burden of proof?

[rovaan]

You see now you are calling me a liar. Please refrain from so doing, as I am much too old to carry on an infatuation with anyone. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly informed you of such you continue to say I do, thereby, indicating I am a liar. My emotions for Ms. Arnelle go far beyond infatuation and are deeply rooted in a mature recognition that all passion, not matter how intensely felt, may not be reciprocated by the object of one's passion and, thus, to admire from afar, without feeling any desire to be with that person, is something far different from infatuation. The ones proven to have lied by the video and their own testimonies were the three detectives, IMHO. I see you have not posted anything to support your false accusation that I claimed anyone lied and I have said that MF lied but that was the court's finding.

This is what I think most likely happened. Lange and Phillips walked with Arnelle to the front door, with Vanatter behind them a ways, possibility wondering what Fuhrman was doing. After Arnelle unlocked the door, turning off the alarm first, they went inside to the maid's room inside the house. Vanatter, still aware Fuhrman had not come in, then unlocked the back door and went outside to where Kato and Fuhrman were talking. Meanwhile, Arnelle realizes she needs her book from her car to get Cathy Randa's number and goes to her room out the back door to get a robe or change clothes. She passes V, F, and K. When she comes back to the house, they follow her in. Vanatter starts talking to Kato. Furhman does out the front door. Arnelle is too shaken to really notice where Fuhrman goes. So I think Kato was right when he said he followed the Detectives (V & F) into the house. IMO

[William Anthony]

This is what I think most likely happened. Lange and Phillips walked with Arnelle to the front door, with Vanatter behind them a ways, possibility wondering what Fuhrman was doing. After Arnelle unlocked the door, turning off the alarm first, they went inside to the maid's room inside the house. Vanatter, still aware Fuhrman had not come in, then unlocked the back door and went outside to where Kato and Fuhrman were talking. Meanwhile, Arnelle realizes she needs her book from her car to get Cathy Randa's number and goes to her room out the back door to get a robe or change clothes. She passes V, F, and K. When she comes back to the house, they follow her in. Vanatter starts talking to Kato. Furhman does out the front door. Arnelle is too shaken to really notice where Fuhrman goes. So I think Kato was right when he said he followed the Detectives (V & F) into the house. IMO

As plausible as any thing else offered, IMHO.:rose:

[Its just me]

Do you know the guard personally?

Yeah he's aunt Sally Mae's third cousin on her husband's side with his 2nd wife. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Yeah he's aunt Sally Mae's third cousin on her husband's side with his 2nd wife. :rolleyes:

LOL -- :beer:

[weezer]

This is what I think most likely happened. Lange and Phillips walked with Arnelle to the front door, with Vanatter behind them a ways, possibility wondering what Fuhrman was doing. After Arnelle unlocked the door, turning off the alarm first, they went inside to the maid's room inside the house. Vanatter, still aware Fuhrman had not come in, then unlocked the back door and went outside to where Kato and Fuhrman were talking. Meanwhile, Arnelle realizes she needs her book from her car to get Cathy Randa's number and goes to her room out the back door to get a robe or change clothes. She passes V, F, and K. When she comes back to the house, they follow her in. Vanatter starts talking to Kato. Furhman does out the front door. Arnelle is too shaken to really notice where Fuhrman goes. So I think Kato was right when he said he followed the Detectives (V & F) into the house. IMO

not bad. but why would she go out the back door to go to her car which was parked out front to get the book from her car? arnelle testified that she didn't return to her room until she had spoken to her dad at least twice which means she'd already gotten her phone book from her car that had randa's phone number in it. kato was right -- he did follow arnelle and detectives into the house through the back door.

[William Anthony]

Yeah he's aunt Sally Mae's third cousin on her husband's side with his 2nd wife. :rolleyes:

Thanks now I understand why you would believe the deputy, because you knew him personally but did not know RG personally. Although, I think that you may be a tad-bit biased in your belief, for the reasons you have stated.;)

[William Anthony]

not bad. but why would she go out the back door to go to her car which was parked out front to get the book from her car? arnelle testified that she didn't return to her room until she had spoken to her dad at least twice which means she'd already gotten her phone book from her car that had randa's phone number in it. kato was right -- he did follow arnelle and detectives into the house through the back door.

Fits neatly into Rovaan' s scenario.

[Its just me]

Thanks now I understand why you would believe the deputy, because you knew him personally but did not know RG personally. Although, I think that you may be a tad-bit biased in your belief, for the reasons you have stated.;)

Not necessarily, Aunt Sallie Mae only comes bringing her bunch the 5th Sunday of every February. Just a lot of circumstances involved.

[fgump2]

Here is something interesting:

Simpson Distraught in Jail Visit, Deputy Says - Trial: Hearing deals with admissibility of defendant's conversation with Rosie Grier that officer says he overheard.
By JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITERS and ANDREA FORD, TIMES STAFF WRITERS|December 15, 1994A crying and distraught O.J. Simpson blurted out two sentences to friend and minister Rosey Grier during an emotional jailhouse visit Nov. 13, according to testimony Wednesday by a sheriff's deputy who says he overheard a snippet of their conversation.

Although Deputy Jeff Stuart did not repeat what he said he overheard, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman questioned him at length during a cryptic hearing in which prosecutors and defense attorneys were forced to argue about a statement that neither has read.


Hodgman was hoping to show that the conversation was so loud that Simpson and Grier waived the privilege that normally protects the privacy of discussions between an inmate and a clergyman. Simpson--who has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman--seemed relaxed and cheerful as Wednesday's hearing unfolded, chatting quietly with his lawyers as the deputy testified.


How could Hodgman make a motion when he doesn't even know what the deputy said he heard?


How desperate were the DA's?????
To assume that the DAs were desperate is uncalled for, there is no reason to think that. If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. Most people try to make their jobs easier. Most courts are overbooked, crowded. That is one reason why most DA depts try to plea bargin.

As for Hodgman making a motion when he didn't know what the deputy said, that is fairly simple. He probably thought there was a good chance that it would make their job easier, either a shorter trial, or no trial. Hodgman probably thought that the comments the guard heard must have been damaging to Simpson otherwise he wouldn't have reported them. Do you object to DAs trying to save tax payer money?

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat.

As for the waive of confidentiality by talking too loud, that does seem strange, but that seems to have been the case.
I got this statement from the NY times on the internet.
"We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/us/simpson-case-judge-delays-dna-and-statement-rulings.html?pagewanted=all

[William Anthony]

Not necessarily, Aunt Sallie Mae only comes bringing her bunch the 5th Sunday of every February. Just a lot of circumstances involved.

So, as I now understand, you are changing the original basis of your opinion from the fact that you did not know RG personally, when I asked and you admitted you did not know the deputy personally, to the circumstances allow you to opine who is lying and who is telling the truth. What circumstances would those be?

[tv]

Not necessarily, Aunt Sallie Mae only comes bringing her bunch the 5th Sunday of every February. Just a lot of circumstances involved.

:beer::beer:

[weezer]

To assume that the DAs were desperate is uncalled for, there is no reason to think that. If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. Most people try to make their jobs easier. Most courts are overbooked, crowded. That is one reason why most DA depts try to plea bargin.

As for Hodgman making a motion when he didn't know what the deputy said, that is fairly simple. He probably thought there was a good chance that it would make their job easier, either a shorter trial, or no trial. Hodgman probably thought that the comments the guard heard must have been damaging to Simpson otherwise he wouldn't have reported them. Do you object to DAs trying to save tax payer money?

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat.

As for the waive of confidentiality by talking too loud, that does seem strange, but that seems to have been the case.
I got this statement from the NY times on the internet.
"We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/us/simpson-case-judge-delays-dna-and-statement-rulings.html?pagewanted=all

People talking loud -- in person or on cell phones -- I don't care if they're talking to their priest/preacher/lawyer -- forfeit any confidentiality and anything they say is for public consumption. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

To assume that the DAs were desperate is uncalled for, there is no reason to think that. If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. Most people try to make their jobs easier. Most courts are overbooked, crowded. That is one reason why most DA depts try to plea bargin.

As for Hodgman making a motion when he didn't know what the deputy said, that is fairly simple. He probably thought there was a good chance that it would make their job easier, either a shorter trial, or no trial. Hodgman probably thought that the comments the guard heard must have been damaging to Simpson otherwise he wouldn't have reported them. Do you object to DAs trying to save tax payer money?

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat.

As for the waive of confidentiality by talking too loud, that does seem strange, but that seems to have been the case.
I got this statement from the NY times on the internet.
"We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/us/simpson-case-judge-delays-dna-and-statement-rulings.html?pagewanted=all

Talk about selective posting but to your credit you did provide the link, which also says,

Judge Ito may well have agreed, had it not been for an issue touched on in one of the testiest exchanges in the trial -- this one between the judge and Mr. Simpson's chief lawyer, Robert L. Shapiro.

It came after the judge had asked a defense lawyer, Gerald F. Uelman, whether Mr. Simpson had waived his privilege by deliberately failing to utilize a secure telephone line in visiting quarters at the jail, and yelling out his remarks instead. "We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

Mr. Shapiro had wasted no chance earlier in the day to remind Judge Ito that the arrangements he made for security in the visiting quarters at the jail had proved porous. "We were assured over our vehement objections that this was a place where we could be assured of confidentiality," he said at one point. "We did not want to go there."

This time, he apparently took Judge Ito's comment not as devil's advocacy but advocacy, pure and simple.

"Your Honor well knows that when we went to the jail and conducted our own experiments after we had been guaranteed by Your Honor and the sheriff's department that we would have a place of privacy, that we did not," Mr. Shapiro said, his voice rising. "I think it's disingenuous for Your Honor even to make that suggestion that you gave us privacy with those phones and then you went there yourself and saw that we did not have privacy!"

"Mr. Shapiro, please," Judge Ito interrupted.

Mr. Shapiro continued, "The court said that those phones are sufficient, and those phones are not sufficient, and everyone who's been there knows they're not sufficient."

Judge Ito, his own color rising, pursed his lips and told Mr. Shapiro to "take a deep breath." Then he declared a recess."

I think to the judge's credit he realized that he had lured Simpson into feeling a false sense of security.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

People talking loud -- in person or on cell phones -- I don't care if they're talking to their priest/preacher/lawyer -- forfeit any confidentiality and anything they say is for public consumption. :shrug:

I did not see where you stated this as your opinion. Are you saying this is what a judge should say?

[William Anthony]

:beer::beer:

I guess it is a lot of circumstances involved for Aunt Sally, Aunt Sally's bunch and those she visits.:);):cool:

[tv]

People talking loud -- in person or on cell phones -- I don't care if they're talking to their priest/preacher/lawyer -- they forfeit any confidentiality and anything they say is for public consumption -- no implied confidentiality. :shrug:

Exactly. Are we supposed to believe that OJ Simpson expected privacy in a jail where even bodily functions are not private -- especially when there was a guard standing a few feet away? Imo, his temper got the better of him per his usual pattern and he blew...:shrug:

[weezer]

Exactly. Are we supposed to believe that OJ Simpson expected privacy in a jail where even bodily functions are not private -- especially when there was a guard standing a few feet away? Imo, his temper got the better of him per his usual pattern and he blew...:shrug:

I thought the silly argument was #1 -- what he said was 'confidential' because he 'was lulled into' and #2 -- everyone knows he talks loud. :punch: still wondering why the criminal defense didn't just say this was another example of a rush to judgement and the good Reverend Grier was going to get on the stand and swear under oath that orenthal hadn't confessed and the guard was lying. :shrug:

[tv]

I thought the silly argument was #1 -- what he said was 'confidential' because he 'was lulled into' and #2 -- everyone knows he talks loud. :punch: still wondering why the criminal defense didn't just say this was another example of a rush to judgement and the good Reverend Grier was going to get on the stand and swear under oath that orenthal hadn't confessed and the guard was lying. :shrug:

That's all the defense had to do. Rev. Rosey could have stopped the speculation dead in it's tracks.

[weezer]

That's all the defense had to do. Rev. Rosey could have stopped the speculation dead in it's tracks.

or anytime in all these years since -- ;)

[tv]

or anytime in all these years since -- ;)

Yesiree, any old time.

My next question is why was Simpson given such preferential treatment in jail? Special accomodations were made for him to have confidentiality? Why?

[William Anthony]

Exactly. Are we supposed to believe that OJ Simpson expected privacy in a jail where even bodily functions are not private -- especially when there was a guard standing a few feet away? Imo, his temper got the better of him per his usual pattern and he blew...:shrug:

"Your Honor well knows that when we went to the jail and conducted our own experiments after we had been guaranteed by Your Honor and the sheriff's department that we would have a place of privacy, that we did not," Mr. Shapiro said, his voice rising. "I think it's disingenuous for Your Honor even to make that suggestion that you gave us privacy with those phones and then you went there yourself and saw that we did not have privacy!"

[rovaan]

or anytime in all these years since -- ;)

He did. April 29, 2005 Westside Today. He said the guard lied and OJ did not confess.

[William Anthony]

I thought the silly argument was #1 -- what he said was 'confidential' because he 'was lulled into' and #2 -- everyone knows he talks loud. :punch: still wondering why the criminal defense didn't just say this was another example of a rush to judgement and the good Reverend Grier was going to get on the stand and swear under oath that orenthal hadn't confessed and the guard was lying. :shrug:

Because whatever was said was CONFIDENTIAL and there wasn't any reason for any witness to take the stand,;)

[William Anthony]

Yesiree, any old time.

My next question is why was Simpson given such preferential treatment in jail? Special accomodations were made for him to have confidentiality? Why?

Because he had the dream team.

[William Anthony]

He did. April 29, 2005 Westside Today. He said the guard lied and OJ did not confess.

Thanks for again setting the record straight.

[William Anthony]

To assume that the DAs were desperate is uncalled for, there is no reason to think that. If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. Most people try to make their jobs easier. Most courts are overbooked, crowded. That is one reason why most DA depts try to plea bargin.

As for Hodgman making a motion when he didn't know what the deputy said, that is fairly simple. He probably thought there was a good chance that it would make their job easier, either a shorter trial, or no trial. Hodgman probably thought that the comments the guard heard must have been damaging to Simpson otherwise he wouldn't have reported them. Do you object to DAs trying to save tax payer money?

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat.

As for the waive of confidentiality by talking too loud, that does seem strange, but that seems to have been the case.
I got this statement from the NY times on the internet.
"We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/us/simpson-case-judge-delays-dna-and-statement-rulings.html?pagewanted=all

"If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. ":);):cool:

[weezer]

He did. April 29, 2005 Westside Today. He said the guard lied and OJ did not confess.

so you've said. and if me or anyone else is willing to buy the article we can prove you were right. ;)

[weezer]

Yesiree, any old time.

My next question is why was Simpson given such preferential treatment in jail? Special accomodations were made for him to have confidentiality? Why?

oh, I think the inmates are entitled to speak to their lawyers and ministers with an expectation of confidentiality. I don't remember any other conversation being reported as having been overheard do you? hmmm

[William Anthony]

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat. By fgump2

I think that the only ones who, IMHO, intentionally dropped items of clothing were LE members.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

oh, I think the inmates are entitled to speak to their lawyers and ministers with an expectation of confidentiality. I don't remember any other conversation being reported as having been overheard do you? hmmm

Makes you wonder why they didn't respect Simpson's privacy, doesn't it?:);):cool:

[GreenIce]

To assume that the DAs were desperate is uncalled for, there is no reason to think that. If the DAs had anything close to a confession, it would have made their job easier. Most people try to make their jobs easier. Most courts are overbooked, crowded. That is one reason why most DA depts try to plea bargin.

As for Hodgman making a motion when he didn't know what the deputy said, that is fairly simple. He probably thought there was a good chance that it would make their job easier, either a shorter trial, or no trial. Hodgman probably thought that the comments the guard heard must have been damaging to Simpson otherwise he wouldn't have reported them. Do you object to DAs trying to save tax payer money?

I sometimes think that if I were to spend some time around the not guilty people on this board, I would probably drop a hat around them just to see if they would start attacking either the LA DAs or the LAPD at the drop of a hat.

As for the waive of confidentiality by talking too loud, that does seem strange, but that seems to have been the case.
I got this statement from the NY times on the internet.
"We have created a situation to allow confidential private conversations, and if the parties choose to shout at each other, that's their problem," Judge Ito said.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/us/simpson-case-judge-delays-dna-and-statement-rulings.html?pagewanted=all

fgump2,

Reality check time, the DA's are arguing to allow a snippet of conversation a guard overheard and they don't even know what the guard overheard? Yes, that is desperate. That is beyond desperate and I daresay if it was you or your loved one and either of you were accused of a murder in CA, you are darn right I would be jumping all over them. If they can do this to a man of great wealth, just imagine what they could do to you!!!!

How does this guard prove what he overheard was about the murders? Doesn't that mean he has to say that he listened to the whole conversation and that the part where the voices were raised, in fact was a confession?

IMO, this is just another time some of the G's are very willing to trample on Simpson's rights but would be crying and be outraged if the same were to happen to them.

How long would it take your family members that you were talking to your minister and remind the public that over part of conversation doesn't mean any thing---that there is no way to prove what exactly was said and put it into context unless you heard the whole conversation.

I think for the first time in history, or maybe in CA's history, a grand jury was dismissed because the zeal and the zest of the DA's to destroy a defendant's right to a fair trial by releasing 911 tapes. This outrage was very successful and the DA's realized where they had to try to their case. They weren't going to win it in the courtroom so they went to the court of public opinion.

Just like the released taped, this guard and what he overheard was another dog and pony show to again taint the jury pool. There is no way Judge Ito or any other judge would have allowed that in. Not after his already telling the LAPD he knew they lied on a search warrant but he was allowing it anyway.

Bottom line, Mr. Simpson did not waive any his rights and neither did Rev Grier. The guard has no way of knowing what the content of the conversation was and if he did, then he would have been nailed between the eyes for being the "bug" in the room.

Again, if you were in the same situation, I can safely say that I would not post just as passionately about your situation that I have about Simpson's. In fact, I would probably be a whole louder if you did not have the money to defend yourself.

Oh and before you a comment about the Simpson jury, please remember, these leaks and rumors happened for the jury was picked or before they were taken for the duration of the trial. This blantent and disgusting and I will call it whatever I want to. I am with in my rights to say that what happened to Mr. Simpson was wrong and it would be just as wrong if it happened to you or me. Mr. Simpson's wealth should not be a free pass for the DA's and the LAPD to taint the jury pool or influence the jury with side issues. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Makes you wonder why they didn't respect Simpson's privacy, doesn't it?:);):cool:

William,

IMO, this was another desperate attempt to taint the jury. The DA's proved their desperation with this stunt. They just wanted the potential jurors or jurors to file this away like the Bronco chase, the letter, Simpson's police interview.

To be honest, when the grand jury was dismissed, I got a really sick feeling in my stomach. I knew the DA's had declared war on our legal systems and were taking their fight outside the courtroom. They did and IMO, they won.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, this was another desperate attempt to taint the jury. The DA's proved their desperation with this stunt. They just wanted the potential jurors or jurors to file this away like the Bronco chase, the letter, Simpson's police interview.

To be honest, when the grand jury was dismissed, I got a really sick feeling in my stomach. I knew the DA's had declared war on our legal systems and were taking their fight outside the courtroom. They did and IMO, they won.

GreenIce,

They won where it does not count. If they had truly won, there would not be the amount of outrage that we see on this board, IMHO. It sounds more like poor losers than boastful winners to me.

[weezer]

BTW, if you go to newslibrary.com, search on Rosey Grier OJ , you will see a listing for the article I was talking about. On my search it is Number 5, Westside Today, April 29, 2005. You can purchase the article. I did. What I posted earlier was in the article. OJ did not confess to Rosey Grier.

I don't want to be accused of not being in 'search of the truth':

Results: 1 - 3 of 3
1. USA TODAY - October 12, 1995
O.J.'s lost chance
O.J. Simpson had good reason to bail out of his interview with NBC.With three civil suits pending against him, a slip of the lip could cost him millions of dollars. His lawyers understandably didn't want him to take that chance.But by first accepting an interview and then suddenly canceling it, Simpson only deepened the suspicions of those who are convinced he murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend, Ronald Goldman.Indeed, his excuse that when he accepted the...
Purchase Complete Article, of 377 words

2. USA TODAY - October 11, 1995
Readers: Where was Simpson?
O.J. Simpson's whereabouts on the night his ex-wife was killed are of prime interest to USA TODAY readers, judging from questions they would like asked in his first post-acquittal interview tonight.On Tuesday, more than 500 people called USA TODAY with suggested questions for NBC's Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric to ask during an interview on Dateline NBC airing at 9 ET/PT.Callers want Simpson to explain what he was doing around 10:15 p.m. on June 12, 1994, the...
Purchase Complete Article, of 465 words

3. USA TODAY - October 11, 1995
For NBC, camera won't be forgiving Interview is a make-it-or-break-it event
We remember these moments.Walter Cronkite announcing President Kennedy's death. Dan Rather crouching in Afghanistan. Roger Mudd asking Ted Kennedy why he wanted to be president.This is the stuff that TV careers are made of.But there are flip sides.Just ask CBS's Connie Chung how those chats with Tonya Harding affected her image. Or ask Geraldo Rivera whether anyone still defines him by the broken nose incident.Even a $7 million-a-year pro such as...
Purchase Complete Article, of 826 words

Results: 1 - 3 of 3

hmmm -- not there :shrug:

[rovaan]

I don't want to be accused of not being in 'search of the truth':

Results: 1 - 3 of 3
1. USA TODAY - October 12, 1995
O.J.'s lost chance
O.J. Simpson had good reason to bail out of his interview with NBC.With three civil suits pending against him, a slip of the lip could cost him millions of dollars. His lawyers understandably didn't want him to take that chance.But by first accepting an interview and then suddenly canceling it, Simpson only deepened the suspicions of those who are convinced he murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend, Ronald Goldman.Indeed, his excuse that when he accepted the...
Purchase Complete Article, of 377 words

2. USA TODAY - October 11, 1995
Readers: Where was Simpson?
O.J. Simpson's whereabouts on the night his ex-wife was killed are of prime interest to USA TODAY readers, judging from questions they would like asked in his first post-acquittal interview tonight.On Tuesday, more than 500 people called USA TODAY with suggested questions for NBC's Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric to ask during an interview on Dateline NBC airing at 9 ET/PT.Callers want Simpson to explain what he was doing around 10:15 p.m. on June 12, 1994, the...
Purchase Complete Article, of 465 words

3. USA TODAY - October 11, 1995
For NBC, camera won't be forgiving Interview is a make-it-or-break-it event
We remember these moments.Walter Cronkite announcing President Kennedy's death. Dan Rather crouching in Afghanistan. Roger Mudd asking Ted Kennedy why he wanted to be president.This is the stuff that TV careers are made of.But there are flip sides.Just ask CBS's Connie Chung how those chats with Tonya Harding affected her image. Or ask Geraldo Rivera whether anyone still defines him by the broken nose incident.Even a $7 million-a-year pro such as...
Purchase Complete Article, of 826 words

Results: 1 - 3 of 3

hmmm -- not there :shrug:

Perhaps you did not go far enough in your search for the truth:

1. USA TODAY - December 15, 1994

Guard: O.J. yelled in meeting
LOS ANGELES - A county jail guard testified Wednesday that O.J. Simpson shouted and appeared to be crying during a conversation with a minister in the visiting area.Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Stuart said Simpson and Rosey Grier, a former NFL player turned minister, spoke loudly enough during their Nov. 13 meeting for him to hear from his post in a control booth in the visiting area.They were speaking via telephone, separated by a Plexiglas window, the deputy said.Stuart...

Purchase Complete Article, of 392 words

2. Newsday (Melville, NY) - December 10, 1994

Rosey's Lips Are Sealed Grier won't divulge O.J. talk
Los Angeles - Former football star Roosevelt Grier yesterday asserted his privilege as a minister in refusing to testify about his jailhouse conversations with O.J. Simpson.At least one of those conversations was overheard by a deputy sheriff, who filed a report that was delivered to Superior Court Judge Lance Ito. A hearing was held yesterday to determine whether Ito should turn any of the information over to Simpson's defense and to the prosecution.Sources have told...

Purchase Complete Article, of 496 words

3. USA TODAY - June 28, 1994

Simpson stays connected as mail, visitors' list grow
LOS ANGELES - O.J. Simpson's access to the outside world is extensive - and growing. Mail has piled into the Men's Central Jail's mail room at a rate of more than 100 pieces a day.Simpson's mail is checked by sheriff's deputies for any sort of contraband, such as weapons or narcotics, then delivered to his 9-by-7-foot cell."O.J. wanted me to say to the people that he's very encouraged by the letters...

Purchase Complete Article, of 362 words

4. Newsday (Melville, NY) - December 10, 1994

Grier Keeping Quiet Says jailhouse talks with O.J. are privileged
Los Angeles - Former football star Roosevelt Grier yesterday asserted his privilege as a minister in refusing to testify about his jailhouse conversations with O.J. Simpson.At least one of those conversations was overheard by a deputy sheriff, who filed a report that was delivered to Superior Court Judge Lance Ito. A hearing was held yesterday to determine whether Ito should turn any of the information over to Simpson's defense and to the prosecution.Sources have told...

Purchase Complete Article, of 498 words

5. Westside Today (CA) - April 29, 2005

Meet Football Legend and Minister, Rosey Grier
Interview by Caroline Ryder Rosey Grier leapt into national prominence as an All-Pro defensive tackle with the New York Giants in 1955. His notoriety grew when he joined the Los Angeles Rams and became the leader of the "Fearsome Foursome," widely considered the best defensive line in football history. Grier, who has lived in Brentwood since the early 1970's and LA since the early 1960's, has starred in numerous films and television shows and...Purchase Complete Article, of 1166 words

[weezer]

still searching -- you must mean this one.:
Results: 1 - 1 of 1

1. Westside Today (CA) - April 29, 2005
Meet Football Legend and Minister, Rosey Grier
Interview by Caroline Ryder Rosey Grier leapt into national prominence as an All-Pro defensive tackle with the New York Giants in 1955. His notoriety grew when he joined the Los Angeles Rams and became the leader of the "Fearsome Foursome," widely considered the best defensive line in football history. Grier, who has lived in Brentwood since the early 1970's and LA since the early 1960's, has starred in numerous films and television shows and...
Purchase Complete Article, of 1166 words

Results: 1 - 1 of 1

[rovaan]

still searching -- you must mean this one.:
Results: 1 - 1 of 1

1. Westside Today (CA) - April 29, 2005
Meet Football Legend and Minister, Rosey Grier
Interview by Caroline Ryder Rosey Grier leapt into national prominence as an All-Pro defensive tackle with the New York Giants in 1955. His notoriety grew when he joined the Los Angeles Rams and became the leader of the "Fearsome Foursome," widely considered the best defensive line in football history. Grier, who has lived in Brentwood since the early 1970's and LA since the early 1960's, has starred in numerous films and television shows and...
Purchase Complete Article, of 1166 words

Results: 1 - 1 of 1

That's the one!

[weezer]

That's the one!

uh-huh. . .I don't see anything in that paragraph or title that would indicate he said what you're posting but I'm going to show you what I found. This link is to a Larry King Show on November 17, 2006, in which grier says orenthal didn't confess and the guard was lying. I have never read this before and I had never heard that he denied the confession. I apologize to you personally and to the board as a whole -- I did not mean to intentionally mislead anyone.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/17/lkl.01.html

[tv]

uh-huh. . .I don't see anything in that paragraph or title that would indicate he said what you're posting but I'm going to show you what I found. This link is to a Larry King Show on November 17, 2006, in which grier says orenthal didn't confess and the guard was lying. I have never read this before and I had never heard that he denied the confession. I apologize to you personally and to the board as a whole -- I did not mean to intentionally mislead anyone.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/17/lkl.01.html

Thanks, weezer. Another thing that stood out to me in the transcript was that Chris Darden and Tom Lange are still standing by the investigation and the evidence. There's no doubt in their minds that the killer of Ron and Nicole is Orenthal James Simpson.

[weezer]

Thanks, weezer. Another thing that stood out to me in the transcript was that Chris Darden and Tom Lange are still standing by the investigation and the evidence. There's no doubt in their minds that the killer of Ron and Nicole is Orenthal James Simpson.

I'm afraid that anything I say at this point will sound like sour grapes but I do have a couple of questions:

1. why 10 years later?
2. does the confidentiality have a statue of limitations on it?

[tv]

I'm afraid that anything I say at this point will sound like sour grapes but I do have a couple of questions:

1. why 10 years later?
2. does the confidentiality have a statue of limitations on it?

It does seem a little curious that he would wait 10 years and then divulge what he feels is a preacher/pentitent confidence. :shrug:

[rovaan]

I'm afraid that anything I say at this point will sound like sour grapes but I do have a couple of questions:

1. why 10 years later?
2. does the confidentiality have a statue of limitations on it?

I noted that he still did not break the confidentiality of exactly what OJ said that day in prison. Maybe after the criminal and civil trials, no one asked him as directly as this reporter did, so he said nothing.

He was in a no-win situation at the time, (a he said/he said situation) with no way to prove anything. I think he made the best decison to assert his privilege as a spiritual advisor.

PS: Thanks for finding the link to the Larry King show.


Your apology is accepted. I would guess there is a lot of information out there that those posting to this board would be interested in but it never made the mainstream press and is extremely difficult to track down.

[weezer]

I noted that he still did not break the confidentiality of exactly what OJ said that day in prison. Maybe after the criminal and civil trials, no one asked him as directly as this reporter did, so he said nothing.

He was in a no-win situation at the time, (a he said/he said situation) with no way to prove anything. I think he made the best decison to assert his privilege as a spiritual advisor.

PS: Thanks for finding the link to the Larry King show.


Your apology is accepted. I would guess there is a lot of information out there that those posting to this board would be interested in but it never made the mainstream press and is extremely difficult to track down.

so what's your take on him telling 10+ years later what he wasn't willing to say at the time? is it your belief that had the prosecution and/or judge asked him outright that he would have said something then? it was all over the news at the time and everyone was asking the question.

I don't know about him not being asked directly -- the questions at the time it happened were pretty straight forward and he knew what he wasn't answering. I'm just amazed that someone -- much less a man of God -- would sit by and not denounce the person who was bearing false witness against an innocent man. That's strictly my take on it and is more influenced by my religeous background and upbringing.

LOL -- I think Larry King would take exception to you saying he isn't mainstream...

PS -- thank you for being so gracious in accepting my apology.

[rovaan]

so what's your take on him telling 10+ years later what he wasn't willing to say at the time? is it your belief that had the prosecution and/or judge asked him outright that he would have said something then? it was all over the news at the time and everyone was asking the question.

I don't know about him not being asked directly -- the questions at the time it happened were pretty straight forward and he knew what he wasn't answering. I'm just amazed that someone -- much less a man of God -- would sit by and not denounce the person who was bearing false witness against an innocent man. That's strictly my take on it and is more influenced by my religeous background and upbringing.

LOL -- I think Larry King would take exception to you saying he isn't mainstream...

PS -- thank you for being so gracious in accepting my apology.

I suspect that he had to tell Ito what OJ said, but not the attorneys. At the time, back in 94 through 97, I do not think he would have said anything to any one other than Ito. I think after time people may have quit asking him. I am not sure on this. The first time I have him saying anything was in April of 2005 for Westside Today. Then later, what he said in 2006 to Larry King, who is mainstream.:) Yet I missed that one.

You express amazement that a man of God would sit by when someone was making false accusations against someone else. What do you think would have happened if he had come out and said the guard was lying during the trial? Would it have helped OJ? I doubt it. In fact, it would have allowed the media continue the story more than they did, finding a way to make Grier the liar as he could not devulge what OJ said and in what context. Remember, he still does not say what OJ said that day. The decisions of the "clergy" are for a person's soul not for their freedom from legal prosecution. I suspect it was a hard decison for Grier to make.

[weezer]

I suspect that he had to tell Ito what OJ said, but not the attorneys. At the time, back in 94 through 97, I do not think he would have said anything to any one other than Ito. I think after time people may have quit asking him. I am not sure on this. The first time I have him saying anything was in April of 2005 for Westside Today. Then later, what he said in 2006 to Larry King, who is mainstream.:) Yet I missed that one.

You express amazement that a man of God would sit by when someone was making false accusations against someone else. What do you think would have happened if he had come out and said the guard was lying during the trial? Would it have helped OJ? I doubt it. In fact, it would have allowed the media continue the story more than they did, finding a way to make Grier the liar as he could not devulge what OJ said and in what context. Remember, he still does not say what OJ said that day. The decisions of the "clergy" are for a person's soul not for their freedom from legal prosecution. I suspect it was a hard decison for Grier to make.

so you think he would have broken the confidentiality to tell the judge? isn't telling one man or 1,000 the same thing?

If Rosey Grier said at the time that the guard was lying and that orenthal had not confessed, I, for one, would have believed him. Most people held/hold him in high esteem. He doesn't have to say what orenthal said or in what context -- he said the guard lied.

The decisions for the 'clergy' are for right -- I'll stand by my observation about bearing false witness. In my Bible, it's one of the ten commandments and I pretty much believe those to be the basis of the soul.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

They won where it does not count. If they had truly won, there would not be the amount of outrage that we see on this board, IMHO. It sounds more like poor losers than boastful winners to me.

William,

IMO, it appears to me that the DA's knew they had a weak case and they also know that their star witnesses were going to have major credibility problems. Because of this, they took their battle to the media and the court of public opinon.

It seems to me that the DA's and the LAPD knew the importance of having the media on their side and they played that very, very well.

[GreenIce]

I suspect that he had to tell Ito what OJ said, but not the attorneys. At the time, back in 94 through 97, I do not think he would have said anything to any one other than Ito. I think after time people may have quit asking him. I am not sure on this. The first time I have him saying anything was in April of 2005 for Westside Today. Then later, what he said in 2006 to Larry King, who is mainstream.:) Yet I missed that one.

You express amazement that a man of God would sit by when someone was making false accusations against someone else. What do you think would have happened if he had come out and said the guard was lying during the trial? Would it have helped OJ? I doubt it. In fact, it would have allowed the media continue the story more than they did, finding a way to make Grier the liar as he could not devulge what OJ said and in what context. Remember, he still does not say what OJ said that day. The decisions of the "clergy" are for a person's soul not for their freedom from legal prosecution. I suspect it was a hard decison for Grier to make.

Rovaan,

Here is something to think about. At least two reporters broke the story about who's blood was on the sock---before the socks were sent out for testing. Two reporters used the "shield Law" to protect their sources.

Ito made a ruling about this leak and slammed the reporter who reported it. IMO, it appears to me that if Simpson's privlege was waived, then the police officers to leak the results of the tests also waived their right to privacy, IMO.

Another point to consider, it appears to me that Simpson was well briefed about these issues. In his deposition, he said that he assumed the room was bugged. IMO, he would not have "confessed".

Also, I seriously doubt that RG asked him if he was guilty or any thing about the crimes. IMO, RG was there for spiritual reasons, helping someone cope during a very difficult time. Asking OJ Simpson about the murders makes no sense, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Makes you wonder why they didn't respect Simpson's privacy, doesn't it?:);):cool:

William,

Do you know of any case where a spiritual advisor has been forced to testify about conversations they had the accused?

[tv]

so you think he would have broken the confidentiality to tell the judge? isn't telling one man or 1,000 the same thing?

If Rosey Grier said at the time that the guard was lying and that orenthal had not confessed, I, for one, would have believed him. Most people held/hold him in high esteem. He doesn't have to say what orenthal said or in what context -- he said the guard lied.

The decisions for the 'clergy' are for right -- I'll stand by my observation about bearing false witness. In my Bible, it's one of the ten commandments and I pretty much believe those to be the basis of the soul.

If Rosey Grier was staying silent because of the cleric/parishoner privilege it makes no sense why he felt it was okay to talk about it 10 years later. His actions at the time seemed deceptive and even 15 years later it seems something isn't quite right about the whole incident and aftermath.

[weezer]

If Rosey Grier was staying silent because of the cleric/parishoner privilege it makes no sense why he felt it was okay to talk about it 10 years later. His actions at the time seemed deceptive and even 15 years later it seems something isn't quite right about the whole incident and aftermath.

I think had he said then or even in the years and years since, would have made a huge difference for me. I'm with you -- something not quite right about this. I can't seem to wrap my head around it was privileged communication then but 10 years later it's not. :shrug:

for all you going to confession tomorrow -- don't go to Rosey. He'll eventually tell. :eek:

[tv]

I think had he said then or even in the years and years since, would have made a huge difference for me. I'm with you -- something not quite right about this. I can't seem to wrap my head around it was privileged communication then but 10 years later it's not. :shrug:

for all you going to confession tomorrow -- don't go to Rosey. He'll eventually tell. :eek:

Yes, for some reason, his standards changed over time. :shrug:

Imo, there's some detail missing that we don't know about that would explain the motive of the defense to want this testimony excluded. It would have helped Simpson's case. When you think of some of the people they did want to testify that could only hurt the case it's just baffling.

[tv]

I think had he said then or even in the years and years since, would have made a huge difference for me. I'm with you -- something not quite right about this. I can't seem to wrap my head around it was privileged communication then but 10 years later it's not. :shrug:

for all you going to confession tomorrow -- don't go to Rosey. He'll eventually tell. :eek:

Ain't that the truth! :tongue: Are we being lulled into a false sense of security?

[weezer]

:shrug:

"Former football star Rosey Grier recently testified in the O.J. Simpson case that his jailhouse conversations with Simpson were confidential because he was there as a "minister of God."

"A minister hears a lot of things he keeps to himself," Grier said about the Los Angeles County jail conversations partially overheard by sheriff's deputies.

The football star-turned minister testified at a hearing in which defense lawyers tried to keep prosecutors from seeing the deputies' statements about the conversations, filed with the court in late November. . ."

January 9, 1995

[weezer]

oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

[tv]

oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

oh, yes... ;)

[rovaan]

I think had he said then or even in the years and years since, would have made a huge difference for me. I'm with you -- something not quite right about this. I can't seem to wrap my head around it was privileged communication then but 10 years later it's not. :shrug:

for all you going to confession tomorrow -- don't go to Rosey. He'll eventually tell. :eek:

I have re-learned something through discussing this. Something I read before but had forgotten. Grier did talk about this when it happened. He told Simpson's attorneys that that what the guard said didn't happen. See Schiller's book. Pg.275

So now is it going to make a huge difference for you? Probably not...

[GreenIce]

I have re-learned something through discussing this. Something I read before but had forgotten. Grier did talk about this when it happened. He told Simpson's attorneys that that what the guard said didn't happen. See Schiller's book. Pg.275

So now is it going to make a huge difference for you? Probably not...

Rovaan,

I think you are right, it won't make a difference. IMO.

By any chance, do you know when this happened? Was it on RG's first visit or were there several before it? Also, I did realize that OJ's mom and sister had asked RG to visit Simpson. IMO, I would think that any visit by RG would have been cleared with the defense.

Also, something else to consider, did RG visit other people in jail? Would have allowed himself to be put in this position? Did he, like Simpson suspect the room may have been bugged?

[GreenIce]

IMHOO and I stress IMHOO. The judge had to determine if the conversation was relevant to the Simpson case. Apparently it had some bearing or it never would have been before Judge Ito. My belief is what a person says to their minister is privileged information unless they waive the right to that privilege...Judge Ito ruled Simpson waived his right to his privilege of privacy with RG. Not me.... but it is my opinion that since what the guard overheard was ruled "not privileged" it should have been presented to the jury for them to decide and NOT allowing it is what’s a threat to our justice system is. The defendant has rights that should not be denied but so does the victim. A trial is not just about the defendant.... there is such a thing as "justice for the victims" OJ simply gave up his rights when he got "loud" enough to be heard by someone other than RG.

Green Ice....If I or my child were accused of a crime that I did not commit I would not only want but would expect my attorney to present in court everything possible within the law to convince the jury I had absolutely nothing to do with the crime I was accused of. If we were guilty I'd expect my attorney to do everything possible within the law to create doubt in order to possibly get a Not guilty by reasonable doubt. On the flip side if my child was murdered....I would want justice and all evidence that should be admissible be allowed to be presented to the jury....IMHOO our justice system is a two way street. The defendant and the victim.

IJM,

By expecting your lawyer to present everything possible in court to convince a jury that you had nothing to do with the crime, aren't you asking your lawyer to solve the crime? To prove someone else did it?

Isn't your request shifting the burden of proof to the defense and not the state? IMO, the defense's job to make the DA's prove their case, not solve the crime. Again, IMO.

Also, another point to consider, would you make this request of your lawyer if this request would put your family members in danger? Such as I believe that happened in the Simpson case.

[weezer]

I have re-learned something through discussing this. Something I read before but had forgotten. Grier did talk about this when it happened. He told Simpson's attorneys that that what the guard said didn't happen. See Schiller's book. Pg.275

So now is it going to make a huge difference for you? Probably not...

I read that about schiller's book in a footnote in some of the reading I've been doing on that today. if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then? and if he was worried about souls, was he not worried about the guard's soul for bearing false witness?

I'm confused about his involvement now. I put great stock in his credibility before this but I don't know now.
I think I may feel a little betrayed by him -- not because of orenthal and whether or not there was a confession -- but because I expected him as a man of God to be on the side of right. The right side would be to denounce the liar. He didn't do that. He didn't say the guard was lying. He didn't say orenthal didn't confess. Not for ten long years.

Do you believe the defense used him?

Also, at the time, he publicly he stated that he went to visit orenthal because he saw on tv that no one was there to counsel him spiritually. ten years later he says orenthal's mom and sister called and asked him to go.

I need to do some more reading and see if I can put this into some kind of perspective that I understand and makes sense to me.

[rovaan]

Rovaan,

I think you are right, it won't make a difference. IMO.

By any chance, do you know when this happened? Was it on RG's first visit or were there several before it? Also, I did realize that OJ's mom and sister had asked RG to visit Simpson. IMO, I would think that any visit by RG would have been cleared with the defense.

Also, something else to consider, did RG visit other people in jail? Would have allowed himself to be put in this position? Did he, like Simpson suspect the room may have been bugged?

It happen 11/13/94. I do not know how many times before he had visited OJ. He does say that he had called ahead to visit him at 5:00pm. He was on time but had waited an hour when he noticed two deputies in the control room laughing and pointing at him. Grier stood up and said "Man, if you have something to say, get down here. Be a man, say it to my face." The guards didn't move. Grier thought they got angry. OJ was brought out. It was during this visit that OJ supposedly confessed.

[rovaan]

I read that about schiller's book in a footnote in some of the reading I've been doing on that today. if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then? and if he was worried about souls, was he not worried about the guard's soul for bearing false witness?

I'm confused about his involvement now. I put great stock in his credibility before this but I don't know now.
I think I may feel a little betrayed by him -- not because of orenthal and whether or not there was a confession -- but because I expected him as a man of God to be on the side of right. The right side would be to denounce the liar. He didn't do that. He didn't say the guard was lying. He didn't say orenthal didn't confess. Not for ten long years.

Do you believe the defense used him?

Also, at the time, he publicly he stated that he went to visit orenthal because he saw on tv that no one was there to counsel him spiritually. ten years later he says orenthal's mom and sister called and asked him to go.

I need to do some more reading and see if I can put this into some kind of perspective that I understand and makes sense to me.

By all means take all the time you need to put this perspective. For me it is settled. OJ did not confess to Grier and the guard either lied or misunderstood what he thought OJ said.

[GreenIce]

It happen 11/13/94. I do not know how many times before he had visited OJ. He does say that he had called ahead to visit him at 5:00pm. He was on time but had waited an hour when he noticed two deputies in the control room laughing and pointing at him. Grier stood up and said "Man, if you have something to say, get down here. Be a man, say it to my face." The guards didn't move. Grier thought they got angry. OJ was brought out. It was during this visit that OJ supposedly confessed.

Rovaan,

I can't figure out why the two guards would be pointing and laughing at RG. Is one of them the same guard that said he overheard this?

IMO, RG had to be on alert in regards to the guards. If he knew they were paying attention to him while he was just waiting to Simpson, I find it hard to believe that he thought they would lose interest in him when he was with Simpson.

[Its just me]

IJM,

By expecting your lawyer to present everything possible in court to convince a jury that you had nothing to do with the crime, aren't you asking your lawyer to solve the crime? To prove someone else did it?

Isn't your request shifting the burden of proof to the defense and not the state? IMO, the defense's job to make the DA's prove their case, not solve the crime. Again, IMO.

Also, another point to consider, would you make this request of your lawyer if this request would put your family members in danger? Such as I believe that happened in the Simpson case.

Go get you arse in a lot of criminal trouble and I'd just imagine you would forget all this terminalogy...I hope you would feel like me and not just sit idly by and let what you think as lying, deceiving, framing DA's send your arse to prison when your attorney could put on the stand someone that could show you didn't commit the crime..

Do you have a link for OJ's family's danger. If so I'll read and consider but as of right now....I don't believe that to be the case.

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here. No offense intended but I'm just not playing a what if game when I'm not at liberty to say what I really think. Sorry if this is a little stiff but it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep and I'm not in a fun playing mood.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, it appears to me that the DA's knew they had a weak case and they also know that their star witnesses were going to have major credibility problems. Because of this, they took their battle to the media and the court of public opinon.

It seems to me that the DA's and the LAPD knew the importance of having the media on their side and they played that very, very well.

GreenIce,

I agree and they hid the truth from many but a recent incident shows that the truth will rise and float but a lie will drown (a Williamism).:)

[William Anthony]

William,

Do you know of any case where a spiritual advisor has been forced to testify about conversations they had the accused?

GreenIce,

No, I don't but I would not be surprised if there were some.

[William Anthony]

If Rosey Grier was staying silent because of the cleric/parishoner privilege it makes no sense why he felt it was okay to talk about it 10 years later. His actions at the time seemed deceptive and even 15 years later it seems something isn't quite right about the whole incident and aftermath.

Now, a man of God is being deceptive.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I think had he said then or even in the years and years since, would have made a huge difference for me. I'm with you -- something not quite right about this. I can't seem to wrap my head around it was privileged communication then but 10 years later it's not. :shrug:

for all you going to confession tomorrow -- don't go to Rosey. He'll eventually tell. :eek:

Ah, the Reverend was berated for keeping silent and now for talking. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Yes, for some reason, his standards changed over time. :shrug:

Imo, there's some detail missing that we don't know about that would explain the motive of the defense to want this testimony excluded. It would have helped Simpson's case. When you think of some of the people they did want to testify that could only hurt the case it's just baffling.

Constitutional issues. Some legal practitioners have a high regard for the Constitution.

[William Anthony]

Ain't that the truth! :tongue: Are we being lulled into a false sense of security?

I think the personal lulling, if any, may have occurred long before the Simpson trial.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I have re-learned something through discussing this. Something I read before but had forgotten. Grier did talk about this when it happened. He told Simpson's attorneys that that what the guard said didn't happen. See Schiller's book. Pg.275

So now is it going to make a huge difference for you? Probably not...

The truth while strongest may be fleeting to ears unwilling to hear it (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

I read that about schiller's book in a footnote in some of the reading I've been doing on that today. if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then? and if he was worried about souls, was he not worried about the guard's soul for bearing false witness?

I'm confused about his involvement now. I put great stock in his credibility before this but I don't know now.
I think I may feel a little betrayed by him -- not because of orenthal and whether or not there was a confession -- but because I expected him as a man of God to be on the side of right. The right side would be to denounce the liar. He didn't do that. He didn't say the guard was lying. He didn't say orenthal didn't confess. Not for ten long years.

Do you believe the defense used him?

Also, at the time, he publicly he stated that he went to visit orenthal because he saw on tv that no one was there to counsel him spiritually. ten years later he says orenthal's mom and sister called and asked him to go.

I need to do some more reading and see if I can put this into some kind of perspective that I understand and makes sense to me.

I cannot and will not be so presumptuous to feel that I can speak as to what God called any man to do. I can say that God reserved judgment, according to my understanding of the Bible. In that vein RG wasn't there to denounce sin but probably would have helped the guard, if the guard was seeking repentance.

[William Anthony]

Go get you arse in a lot of criminal trouble and I'd just imagine you would forget all this terminalogy...I hope you would feel like me and not just sit idly by and let what you think as lying, deceiving, framing DA's send your arse to prison when your attorney could put on the stand someone that could show you didn't commit the crime..

Do you have a link for OJ's family's danger. If so I'll read and consider but as of right now....I don't believe that to be the case.

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here. No offense intended but I'm just not playing a what if game when I'm not at liberty to say what I really think. Sorry if this is a little stiff but it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep and I'm not in a fun playing mood.

It is more than legal terminology. They are the legal principles upon which our system of jurisprudence was founded.

[William Anthony]

Go get you arse in a lot of criminal trouble and I'd just imagine you would forget all this terminalogy...I hope you would feel like me and not just sit idly by and let what you think as lying, deceiving, framing DA's send your arse to prison when your attorney could put on the stand someone that could show you didn't commit the crime..

Do you have a link for OJ's family's danger. If so I'll read and consider but as of right now....I don't believe that to be the case.

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here. No offense intended but I'm just not playing a what if game when I'm not at liberty to say what I really think. Sorry if this is a little stiff but it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep and I'm not in a fun playing mood.

Simpson said he was home at the time of the murders. There was no one that saw him during that time. Therefore, it became the prosecution's burden to prove that he was not home, not his to prove he was. The prosecution did not put anyone on the stand, who claimed to have seen Simpson at any place away from his home at the time of the murders.

[William Anthony]

uh-huh. . .I don't see anything in that paragraph or title that would indicate he said what you're posting but I'm going to show you what I found. This link is to a Larry King Show on November 17, 2006, in which grier says orenthal didn't confess and the guard was lying. I have never read this before and I had never heard that he denied the confession. I apologize to you personally and to the board as a whole -- I did not mean to intentionally mislead anyone.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/17/lkl.01.html

Apology accepted but you need not worry about ever misleading me. Thanks.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The fact or facts is, you need to establish that Arnelle and Simpson had communication regarding the murders.

The fact is you also need to establish that if this communication did indeed take place, that Arnelle would have followed her father's instruction.

The fact is that the detectives need to justify their enterance on to Simpson's propert and needed to get inside the mainhouse. Arnelle did not have to justify while she was sleeping in her own room nor did she have to justify when or why she entered the house.

The fact is there is no supporting evidence that the dark items in the washer was what you claim it to be nor was there any evidence that the contents of the washer in fact wet.

The fact is Arnelle and everybody else were ordered out of the house by 7:30 a.m. and the search warrant was never issued until after 10:00 a.m. that morning, so no one can proof what the contents of the washer machine were that morning when the police first entered the house.

The fact is that without any witnesses such as a detective or SID person to testify about this, there is really nothing to debate. You can't prove any of your claims. However, it would be interesting to hear why if so many people saw the contents of the washing machine, why they were not called to testify about this. At least in the civil trial.

The fact is never was Arnelle challenged regarding washing any clothes. The fact is that none of the detectives ever said that Arnelle was acting differently and none of her actions or demeanor indicated that she knew anything about the murders or clean up.

The fact is or should I say the facts are, the 4 detectives have been caught in contradictary testimony. The fact is VA did testify that Arnelle told him that Rockingham was not her primary residence and that she just happened to sleep there that night.

The bottomline fact is that if the detectives or anyone else had any proof of this, Arnelle would have been arrested and charged. IMO, at least one family could have found a tad of comfort knowing that at least someone was going to jail for a long time.

The reality of this whole debate comes down to this fact that you can't change no matter how hard you try, the allowed Arnelle to keep possession of the key, they allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, they allowed Arnelle to disarm the alarm and they allowed her as well as Kato, according to you to enter a house where they firmly stated they believed that people who lived in the main house were in mortal danager or needed medical treatment ASAP.

Another point, do you really think Westec would not have turned off the alarm? That if VA, according to him had to demand the telephone number because of the grave danger, that he would not have demanded the security code or ask if they had keys to the home?

An unlock door or doors or security system set or not set does not equal an accomplice. And as you know, the detectives were very selective on what they heard and what they saw.

Remember, VA was citied for reckless disregard of the truth on the search warrant because at the time he wrote it, he already knew what had written was a lie. Why would VA lie on the warrant when he did not have to?

If Arnelle lied as you say she has, then it was to help cover for her father or for her involvement in the clean up.

Who was VA lying for? What was he trying to cover up?

None of the so called facts you listed changes the evidence I listed. Arnelle got lucky, the prosecutors knew that her story was impeached by five witnesses but they never figured out why she lied so they just let it go. They had a higher priority trying to convict the person they all believed killed both Ron and Nicole.

What I find funny is that NG’s who seem to be able to come up with all kinds of conspiracy and evidence planting theories based on no evidence except their imagination can’t seem to understand the evidence in this case that points to the reason why Arnelle Simpson lied.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You see now you are calling me a liar. Please refrain from so doing, as I am much too old to carry on an infatuation with anyone. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly informed you of such you continue to say I do, thereby, indicating I am a liar. My emotions for Ms. Arnelle go far beyond infatuation and are deeply rooted in a mature recognition that all passion, not matter how intensely felt, may not be reciprocated by the object of one's passion and, thus, to admire from afar, without feeling any desire to be with that person, is something far different from infatuation. The ones proven to have lied by the video and their own testimonies were the three detectives, IMHO. I see you have not posted anything to support your false accusation that I claimed anyone lied and I have said that MF lied but that was the court's finding.

No I’m not calling you a liar; I simply believe the word infatuation appropriately describes your emotions regarding Arnelle Simpson. I base that belief on the descriptive words you continually use when you refer to her name and your foolish opinion deprived of sound judgment when you claim that the five witnesses who impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story were lying and Arnelle Simpson was the one telling the truth.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Reports/cellr.txt

Yes.

http://mowabb.com/ai/archives/005936.html

We are not talking about cell phone records since there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson even had a car phone in June 1994, we are talking about land line telephone records. I do not believe land line telephone records show incoming calls unless they are collect calls, so if Simpson called Arnelle’s phone in her room from a payphone in Chicago that call would not be shown on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I rely on the technology, which proves that the nervous, sleepy, mistaken witnesses prone to human error, were impeached, showing they lied, IMHO, and showed that Ms. Arnelle told the truth.

I agree that the video tape proves that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door, but all three detectives were very clear that Arnelle opened that back door and they all entered the house through that back door. As well as Kato Kaelin was very clear when he corroborated the three detectives testimony when he said he saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter the house through that back door and he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through that back door.

Five witnesses testimony impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story. Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated testimony did not impeach the five witnesses.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I’m not calling you a liar; I simply believe the word infatuation appropriately describes your emotions regarding Arnelle Simpson. I base that belief on the descriptive words you continually use when you refer to her name and your foolish opinion deprived of sound judgment when you claim that the five witnesses who impeached Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated story were lying and Arnelle Simpson was the one telling the truth.

bobaugust

I have told you that what I feel for the beautiful, poised, intelligent Ms. Arnelle is much more intense than an infatuation but yet you want to minimize my feelings and call me a liar. How can you possibly know what I feel for Ms. Arnelle? Three detectives and the video corroborated her testimony. I have never claimed that anyone was lying, save MF.

[William Anthony]

We are not talking about cell phone records since there is no evidence that Arnelle Simpson even had a car phone in June 1994, we are talking about land line telephone records. I do not believe land line telephone records show incoming calls unless they are collect calls, so if Simpson called Arnelle’s phone in her room from a payphone in Chicago that call would not be shown on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records.

bobaugust

Simpson was by no means poor and he obviously cared for his children, IMHO. I think he would care enough to make sure his daughter had a phone that she could use while out and about in the nightime hours. Do you think Simpson had a cell phone or did he make one up with accessories? I believe that Simpson earned enough at the time to have car phones, cell phones and land lines and probably a telegraph. :);):cool: Since the claim has been made that Simpson called her and asked her to was the alleged bloody sweatsuit, then those making the claim should produce evidence to support the claim and not say there is none but he did so.

[William Anthony]

I agree that the video tape proves that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door, but all three detectives were very clear that Arnelle opened that back door and they all entered the house through that back door. As well as Kato Kaelin was very clear when he corroborated the three detectives testimony when he said he saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter the house through that back door and he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through that back door.

Five witnesses testimony impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story. Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated testimony did not impeach the five witnesses.

bobaugust

You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.

[martin II]

Rovaan,

I can't figure out why the two guards would be pointing and laughing at RG. Is one of them the same guard that said he overheard this?

IMO, RG had to be on alert in regards to the guards. If he knew they were paying attention to him while he was just waiting to Simpson, I find it hard to believe that he thought they would lose interest in him when he was with Simpson.

That sounds like a reason for the guard to just make up a lie about oj yelled and what he claimes OJ said.

[martin II]

Thanks, weezer. Another thing that stood out to me in the transcript was that Chris Darden and Tom Lange are still standing by the investigation and the evidence. There's no doubt in their minds that the killer of Ron and Nicole is Orenthal James Simpson.

Both Darden and Lang has no choice but to stick by their previous positions. They wrote books.

[William Anthony]

Both Darden and Lang has no choice but to stick by their previous positions. They wrote books.

Darden and Lang's mindsets cannot change the fact that Simpson was found and will forever remain not guilty.

[martin II]

I suspect that he had to tell Ito what OJ said, but not the attorneys. At the time, back in 94 through 97, I do not think he would have said anything to any one other than Ito. I think after time people may have quit asking him. I am not sure on this. The first time I have him saying anything was in April of 2005 for Westside Today. Then later, what he said in 2006 to Larry King, who is mainstream.:) Yet I missed that one.

You express amazement that a man of God would sit by when someone was making false accusations against someone else. What do you think would have happened if he had come out and said the guard was lying during the trial? Would it have helped OJ? I doubt it. In fact, it would have allowed the media continue the story more than they did, finding a way to make Grier the liar as he could not devulge what OJ said and in what context. Remember, he still does not say what OJ said that day. The decisions of the "clergy" are for a person's soul not for their freedom from legal prosecution. I suspect it was a hard decison for Grier to make.


It is possible that when Rev Grier talked to ITO,ITO asked a general question
and Rev Grier indicted that he talked to OJ in confidence and he had no intention of breaking it.ITO may have tried to get more info and Rev Grier just told him the guard was mistaken about what he though he heard.
This left ITO with two people saying OJ did not confess and one saying he did.ITO went to his law books and found a solution.imo

[martin II]

It does seem a little curious that he would wait 10 years and then divulge what he feels is a preacher/pentitent confidence. :shrug:

Rev Grier has never been a confrontational type person even when he played football which some say is the reason he is not in the Hall Of Fame.

I think he decided not to allow himself to be involved or create a media circus
by making a comment on the guard at the time of the trial.He had told ITO
whatever he told him so he just tucked the issue away and was finished with it. He had no responsibility to satisfy what some in the public though he should have said or done.
Years later when he was questioned by the reporter and Larry king, He decided to put the question to rest and he did.

Larry King obviously thought he could stack the panel discussion with 6-7 anti oj talking heads and stick Rev Grier on the panel with the hope that Rev Grier would crumble under the opposition to his position and start talking about what oj did say to him even if it was not a confession.

Rev Grier did give Larry and his panel a bone but it was not the one they were looking for. It was the same one he gave the reporter and very possible the one he gave ITO.

Media misinformation.
Yesterday i read two links by media that gave two different versions of what they said oj said to Rev Grier.

[William Anthony]

Simpson was by no means poor and he obviously cared for his children, IMHO. I think he would care enough to make sure his daughter had a phone that she could use while out and about in the nightime hours. Do you think Simpson had a cell phone or did he make one up with accessories? I believe that Simpson earned enough at the time to have car phones, cell phones and land lines and probably a telegraph. :);):cool: Since the claim has been made that Simpson called her and asked her to was the alleged bloody sweatsuit, then those making the claim should produce evidence to support the claim and not say there is none but he did so.

Correction-Since the claim has been made that Simpson called her and asked her to wash the alleged bloody sweatsuit, then those making the claim should produce evidence to support the claim and not say there is none but he did so.

[martin II]

It does seem a little curious that he would wait 10 years and then divulge what he feels is a preacher/pentitent confidence. :shrug:

He did not divulge a preacher/pentitent. He never said what oj said when he was supposed to have yelled. He did say he and oj talked about the bible.

[martin II]

so what's your take on him telling 10+ years later what he wasn't willing to say at the time? is it your belief that had the prosecution and/or judge asked him outright that he would have said something then? it was all over the news at the time and everyone was asking the question.

I don't know about him not being asked directly -- the questions at the time it happened were pretty straight forward and he knew what he wasn't answering. I'm just amazed that someone -- much less a man of God -- would sit by and not denounce the person who was bearing false witness against an innocent man. That's strictly my take on it and is more influenced by my religeous background and upbringing.

LOL -- I think Larry King would take exception to you saying he isn't mainstream...

PS -- thank you for being so gracious in accepting my apology.

I think Rev Grier felt a strong responsibility to two people. OJ and himself. He was not the prosecution or the defense and felt no cause to satisfy the news hungry media and the public.

[martin II]

That's all the defense had to do. Rev. Rosey could have stopped the speculation dead in it's tracks.

Why would he be concerned about public speculation?

[martin II]

William,

Do you know of any case where a spiritual advisor has been forced to testify about conversations they had the accused?

If Billy Graham had visited and talked to oj would he have been put on the carpet as Rev Graham was? What if the Pope had visited OJ. Would ITO question him.:cool:

[martin II]

If Rosey Grier was staying silent because of the cleric/parishoner privilege it makes no sense why he felt it was okay to talk about it 10 years later. His actions at the time seemed deceptive and even 15 years later it seems something isn't quite right about the whole incident and aftermath.

He did not talk about the oj conversation 15 years later. I don't know why you continue to say this. All he has ever said publically is the guard lied and he spoke to oj about the bible. Not one word about what oj said.

[martin II]

People take from the bible what makes them feel good. Obviously Rev Grier understood his confidential conversations with oj went to the heart of his work as a minister. He felt no obligation to become involved in a criminal trial and 'POINT FINGERS'

I think it can be dangerous for one to attempt to impose ones views of the words of the bible to another and attack the one with a different view.

[martin II]

I agree that the video tape proves that the three detectives were mistaken about Arnelle unlocking the back door, but all three detectives were very clear that Arnelle opened that back door and they all entered the house through that back door. As well as Kato Kaelin was very clear when he corroborated the three detectives testimony when he said he saw Arnelle and the three detectives enter the house through that back door and he and Fuhrman followed them into the house through that back door.

Five witnesses testimony impeached Arnelle Simpson’s story. Arnelle Simpson’s uncorroborated testimony did not impeach the five witnesses.

bobaugust

Not Phillips. He testified that he walked into the living room where the french doors were.

[GreenIce]

Go get you arse in a lot of criminal trouble and I'd just imagine you would forget all this terminalogy...I hope you would feel like me and not just sit idly by and let what you think as lying, deceiving, framing DA's send your arse to prison when your attorney could put on the stand someone that could show you didn't commit the crime..

Do you have a link for OJ's family's danger. If so I'll read and consider but as of right now....I don't believe that to be the case.

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here. No offense intended but I'm just not playing a what if game when I'm not at liberty to say what I really think. Sorry if this is a little stiff but it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep and I'm not in a fun playing mood.

ITJ,

The LAPD knew that Sydney had overheard her mother fighting and crying on the telephone. Yet they should no interest in this. Even after claiming that this person should have been on their "potential" suspect list.

We have one witness who called Nicole and said Nicole was terrified that night and this witness suggested she call a friend to stay with her.

We have a phone call at 10:30 p.m. about two bodies on Bundy.

One book claims that Sydney also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and it was not her father's voice and we don't know if she would have been able to recognize Ron's voice.

Simpson refused to allow Sydney to testify and IMO, she had the key evidence to free him or to nail him.

IMO, Simpson knows that he didn't do it, he knows who did it, knows he didn't do it, but he also knows that his daughter is a witness and will be a witness if this person was ever arrested. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Not Phillips. He testified that he walked into the living room where the french doors were.

Martin,

It appears to me that most people don't realize that MF has impeached Kato. And even if the detectives were all telling the same story, I think you could count on 1 finger let alone one hand when this has happened. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Its just me View Post

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here.

I think you may want to read the rules.

[weezer]

By all means take all the time you need to put this perspective. For me it is settled. OJ did not confess to Grier and the guard either lied or misunderstood what he thought OJ said.

how did you reconcile the criminal defense argument that the conversation (lie or misunderstood) was kept out of court and out of evidence based on 'privileged communication' but according to schiller, grier told the attornies, 10+ years later grier told the world, and according to your suggestion, probably told ito?

My original question: "if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then?"

[weezer]

Go get you arse in a lot of criminal trouble and I'd just imagine you would forget all this terminalogy...I hope you would feel like me and not just sit idly by and let what you think as lying, deceiving, framing DA's send your arse to prison when your attorney could put on the stand someone that could show you didn't commit the crime..

Do you have a link for OJ's family's danger. If so I'll read and consider but as of right now....I don't believe that to be the case.

I've played along with this what if but I'm not a what if person. I've posted on the Tara Grinstead board since 2006 where what ifs were shot down as fast as they went up. It would get nasty but the truth and fact people were left continuing to post and I'm just not interesting in going that route here and getting my posts reported by the dozens. We didn't have much post reporting on the Tara Board and could tell the "what if this and that" a head full but I don't believe that to be the case here. No offense intended but I'm just not playing a what if game when I'm not at liberty to say what I really think. Sorry if this is a little stiff but it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep and I'm not in a fun playing mood.

whenever I'm feeling frustrated, I pull these up and re-read the truth:

Ito's rulings:

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

and

". . .The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court. . ."

:beer:

[Its just me]

ITJ,

The LAPD knew that Sydney had overheard her mother fighting and crying on the telephone. Yet they should no interest in this. Even after claiming that this person should have been on their "potential" suspect list.

We have one witness who called Nicole and said Nicole was terrified that night and this witness suggested she call a friend to stay with her.

We have a phone call at 10:30 p.m. about two bodies on Bundy.

One book claims that Sydney also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and it was not her father's voice and we don't know if she would have been able to recognize Ron's voice.

Simpson refused to allow Sydney to testify and IMO, she had the key evidence to free him or to nail him.

IMO, Simpson knows that he didn't do it, he knows who did it, knows he didn't do it, but he also knows that his daughter is a witness and will be a witness if this person was ever arrested. IMO.

The simple fact is we don't know the purpose Simpson would not allow Sydney to testify. You thinking it don’t make it so. If could be as you claim but it could be that Simpson was worried Sydney could nail him. Another simple fact is a guilty defendant does not always tell the truth. OJ was facing the possibility of spending the rest of his living days in a prison cell...common sense tells me he and his defense put on every witness possible to keep that from happening. It worked with what they used but they did not know it would. Period. Too bad Simpson didn't care enough about his children to keep his self clean so he could spend the remaining of living days with them being a good Dad and possibly one day a Grand dad. Somehow I don't see Simpson playing the Grandpa roll if he was home free but hey he's not alone....there are many out there living in the fast lane and there will never be stability in that life style and children need stability.

It is kind of sad that truth has gotten so mixed up in drama, lies, imaginations, opinions that have taken legs as truth...the Simpson case will always be a circus. It's not OJ's fault but we the people. All the people who have taken part. I don't feel sorry for OJ but I do for his children and their generations to come. The OJ trials are over with... what happened… happened no matter what is one's belief. If Simpson is innocent he will forever remain innocent and if he is guilty he will forever remain guilty. A trial is to determine if a defendant is set free or punished in the world we live in...Not to change reality...that is impossible. It's clear you have a strong belief in God....God is a just God and the real killer of Ron and Nicole will one day face our God. Where it's OJ or someone else the truth is... not a one us actually knows. We all have our belief and its clear there are a lot of different opinions even here....but a belief or opinion is just that. Thoughts in each of our individual minds... and that can't prove anything especially when based on the things related to the circus OJ’s trial became. Just a MHOO

[William Anthony]

how did you reconcile the criminal defense argument that the conversation (lie or misunderstood) was kept out of court and out of evidence based on 'privileged communication' but according to schiller, grier told the attornies, 10+ years later grier told the world, and according to your suggestion, probably told ito?

My original question: "if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then?"

If you will allow me to provide some assistance based on my training, experience and understanding without being called a wannabe, then the privilege literally pertains to what the client said to the clergy and not to what the client did not say.

[weezer]

anyone have numbers on a more recent poll?

NBC News Poll: 10 years after Simpson verdict

June 6, 2004
Q1: From what you've heard, do you think O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

Total
Yes 77%
No 22

[rovaan]

how did you reconcile the criminal defense argument that the conversation (lie or misunderstood) was kept out of court and out of evidence based on 'privileged communication' but according to schiller, grier told the attornies, 10+ years later grier told the world, and according to your suggestion, probably told ito?

My original question: "if grier told orenthal's attornies, did he violate the privilege then?"

I don't have any need to reconcile what the criminal defense did during the trial with what Grier did say or has said about the situation. I don't care about the lawyering (sorry William). Grier said at the time it didn't happen. He said it in 2005 and in 2006. To my knowledge, OJ has never confessed, in spite of many attempts by others to say he did. I believe Grier.

In fact, if OJ did confess (for real), he would have some explaining to do about how he committed the murders before I would believe him.

[weezer]

I don't have any need to reconcile what the criminal defense did during the trial with what Grier did say or has said about the situation. I don't care about the lawyering (sorry William). Grier said at the time it didn't happen. He said it in 2005 and in 2006. To my knowledge, OJ has never confessed, in spite of many attempts by others to say he did. I believe Grier.

In fact, if OJ did confess (for real), he would have some explaining to do about how he committed the murders before I would believe him.

he did tell us how he did it:

". . .I'm going to tell you a story you've never heard before, because no one knows this story the way I know it. It takes place on the night June 12, 1994, and it concerns the murder of my ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her young friend, Ronald Goldman. I want you to forget everything you think you know about that night because I know the facts better than anyone. . .

. . .Nicole moaned, regaining consciousness. She stirred on the ground and opened her eyes and looked at me, but it didn't seem like anything was registering. . ."

. . .I noticed the knife in Charlie's hand, and in one deft move I removed my right glove and snatched it up. "We're not going anywhere," I said, turning to face Goldman. Goldman was still circling me, bobbing and weaving, but I didn't feel like laughing anymore. . .

. . .Then something went horribly wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell you exactly how. I was still standing in Nicole's courtyard, of course, but for a few moments I couldn't remember how I'd gotten there, when I'd arrived, or even why I was there. Then it came back to me, very slowly: The recital-with little Sydney up on stage, dancing her little heart out; me, chipping balls into my neighbor's yard; Paula, angry, not answering her phone; Charlie, stopping by the house to tell me some more ugly **** about Nicole's behavior. Then what? The short, quick drive from Rockingham to the Bundy condo. And now?

Now I was standing in Nicole's courtyard, in the dark, listening to the loud, rhythmic, accelerated beating of my own heart. I put my left hand to my heart and my shirt felt strangely wet. I looked down at myself. For several moments, I couldn't get my mind around what I was seeing. The whole front of me was covered in blood, but it didn't compute. Is this really blood? I wondered. And whose blood is it? Is it mine? Am I hurt? . ."

http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/#ixzz0SKMuvWOf

[rovaan]

he did tell us how he did it:

". . .I'm going to tell you a story you've never heard before, because no one knows this story the way I know it. It takes place on the night June 12, 1994, and it concerns the murder of my ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her young friend, Ronald Goldman. I want you to forget everything you think you know about that night because I know the facts better than anyone. . .

. . .Nicole moaned, regaining consciousness. She stirred on the ground and opened her eyes and looked at me, but it didn't seem like anything was registering. . ."

. . .I noticed the knife in Charlie's hand, and in one deft move I removed my right glove and snatched it up. "We're not going anywhere," I said, turning to face Goldman. Goldman was still circling me, bobbing and weaving, but I didn't feel like laughing anymore. . .

. . .Then something went horribly wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell you exactly how. I was still standing in Nicole's courtyard, of course, but for a few moments I couldn't remember how I'd gotten there, when I'd arrived, or even why I was there. Then it came back to me, very slowly: The recital-with little Sydney up on stage, dancing her little heart out; me, chipping balls into my neighbor's yard; Paula, angry, not answering her phone; Charlie, stopping by the house to tell me some more ugly **** about Nicole's behavior. Then what? The short, quick drive from Rockingham to the Bundy condo. And now?

Now I was standing in Nicole's courtyard, in the dark, listening to the loud, rhythmic, accelerated beating of my own heart. I put my left hand to my heart and my shirt felt strangely wet. I looked down at myself. For several moments, I couldn't get my mind around what I was seeing. The whole front of me was covered in blood, but it didn't compute. Is this really blood? I wondered. And whose blood is it? Is it mine? Am I hurt? . ."

http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/#ixzz0SKMuvWOf

You know all about the evidence, the physical realities of Bundy and Rockingham, the testimonies and you believe what was written in "If I did it?"
Unbelievable.

[William Anthony]

I don't have any need to reconcile what the criminal defense did during the trial with what Grier did say or has said about the situation. I don't care about the lawyering (sorry William). Grier said at the time it didn't happen. He said it in 2005 and in 2006. To my knowledge, OJ has never confessed, in spite of many attempts by others to say he did. I believe Grier.

In fact, if OJ did confess (for real), he would have some explaining to do about how he committed the murders before I would believe him.

I was speaking solely to the point of asking about RG violating the privilege, which he did not by saying that Simpson did not say something. He would have violated it if he said Simpson said.... There is no need to apologize, as there was nothing for you or anyone else to reconcile.

[William Anthony]

anyone have numbers on a more recent poll?

NBC News Poll: 10 years after Simpson verdict

June 6, 2004
Q1: From what you've heard, do you think O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

Total
Yes 77%
No 22

September 27, 2009

Total

No. 100%
yes. 0%


Number surveyed-one.:);):cool:

[weezer]

You know all about the evidence, the physical realities of Bundy and Rockingham, the testimonies and you believe what was written in "If I did it?"
Unbelievable.

I was responding to the post that orenthal needed to explain how he'd done it. His version -- not mine.

[rovaan]

I was responding to the post that orenthal needed to explain how he'd done it. His version -- not mine.

So you are saying you don't believe what was written in that chapter, right?
Okay. I don't believe it was OJ's confession either.

[rovaan]

I was speaking solely to the point of asking about RG violating the privilege, which he did not by saying that Simpson did not say something. He would have violated it if he said Simpson said.... There is no need to apologize, as there was nothing for you or anyone else to reconcile.

In my post, I was apoligizing for not being concerned about "lawyering", which from what I have read is very dear to your heart. I did not wish to offend you.

[Hipcheck]

So you are saying you don't believe what was written in that chapter, right?
Okay. I don't believe it was OJ's confession either.

I believe O.J. told us just how the murders went down.

[William Anthony]

In my post, I was apoligizing for not being concerned about "lawyering", which from what I have read is very dear to your heart. I did not wish to offend you.

There is no need to apologize, since it would be very awkward if everyone shared my passions:). I did notice however that, IMHO, you placed proper reliance on the evidence as opposed to works of fiction. :);):cool:

[weezer]

I believe O.J. told us just how the murders went down.

so do I.

[rovaan]

so do I.

You know OJ can be so naive sometimes about who he trusts, yet turn around and be brillant in something where he is readily condemned. He gives interviews for a book about his relationship with Nicole, something he has wanted to tell for a long time, gets money for doing it, and allows an untrue chapter to be put in it about the murders. As he later said, "If the prosecution read it, they would say 'well, this is impossible." Now he has many of those who think he is guilty arguing he confessed from a scenario that is impossible. Doesn't this hurt some of his accusors credibilty? No wonder they had to lock him up.

[weezer]

You know OJ can be so naive sometimes about who he trusts, yet turn around and be brillant in something where he is readily condemned. He gives interviews for a book about his relationship with Nicole, something he has wanted to tell for a long time, gets money for doing it, and allows an untrue chapter to be put in it about the murders. As he later said, "If the prosecution read it, they would say 'well, this is impossible." Now he has many of those who think he is guilty arguing he confessed from a scenario that is impossible. Doesn't this hurt some of his accusors credibilty? No wonder they had to lock him up.

I can't imagine any situation where orenthal would be considered 'brilliant.' you shouldn't jump to a conclusion that because many people acknowledge the book as his confession that they buy into the whole scenario as depicted by orenthal. The truth, for me, does not lie in the physical actions he talks about (someone coming by and telling him stuff about Nicole and/or Charlie holding the knife) but rather in the circumstances and reactions of orenthal the person. I believe those to be his confession.

[weezer]

You know OJ can be so naive sometimes about who he trusts, yet turn around and be brillant in something where he is readily condemned. He gives interviews for a book about his relationship with Nicole, something he has wanted to tell for a long time, gets money for doing it, and allows an untrue chapter to be put in it about the murders. As he later said, "If the prosecution read it, they would say 'well, this is impossible." Now he has many of those who think he is guilty arguing he confessed from a scenario that is impossible. Doesn't this hurt some of his accusors credibilty? No wonder they had to lock him up.

did you think it was odd that it was arnelle who pitched the idea of the book to orenthal?

[William Anthony]

I can't imagine any situation where orenthal would be considered 'brilliant.' you shouldn't jump to a conclusion that because many people acknowledge the book as his confession that they buy into the whole scenario as depicted by orenthal. The truth, for me, does not lie in the physical actions he talks about (someone coming by and telling him stuff about Nicole and/or Charlie holding the knife) but rather in the circumstances and reactions of orenthal the person. I believe those to be his confession.

So, people selectively decide what is his alleged confession and what is not in the book, correct?

[GreenIce]

The simple fact is we don't know the purpose Simpson would not allow Sydney to testify. You thinking it don’t make it so. If could be as you claim but it could be that Simpson was worried Sydney could nail him. Another simple fact is a guilty defendant does not always tell the truth. OJ was facing the possibility of spending the rest of his living days in a prison cell...common sense tells me he and his defense put on every witness possible to keep that from happening. It worked with what they used but they did not know it would. Period. Too bad Simpson didn't care enough about his children to keep his self clean so he could spend the remaining of living days with them being a good Dad and possibly one day a Grand dad. Somehow I don't see Simpson playing the Grandpa roll if he was home free but hey he's not alone....there are many out there living in the fast lane and there will never be stability in that life style and children need stability.

It is kind of sad that truth has gotten so mixed up in drama, lies, imaginations, opinions that have taken legs as truth...the Simpson case will always be a circus. It's not OJ's fault but we the people. All the people who have taken part. I don't feel sorry for OJ but I do for his children and their generations to come. The OJ trials are over with... what happened… happened no matter what is one's belief. If Simpson is innocent he will forever remain innocent and if he is guilty he will forever remain guilty. A trial is to determine if a defendant is set free or punished in the world we live in...Not to change reality...that is impossible. It's clear you have a strong belief in God....God is a just God and the real killer of Ron and Nicole will one day face our God. Where it's OJ or someone else the truth is... not a one us actually knows. We all have our belief and its clear there are a lot of different opinions even here....but a belief or opinion is just that. Thoughts in each of our individual minds... and that can't prove anything especially when based on the things related to the circus OJ’s trial became. Just a MHOO


IJM,

Had Sydney or Justin had information that would have nailed their father, the Browns would have insisted they testify and this could have been done in camera. The Browns would not allow anyone to question Sydney or Justin either. It is obvious that Simpson always put Sydney and Justin first during this time. IMO, he could have made it worse by keeping the kids away from Nicole's family.

IMO, you are saying that if you were in a similar situation and your minor children had information that would help you, you would make them testify regardless of the obvious danger you are putting them in? You would risk your children's life to save you some prision time? Somehow I can't see that happening. IMO, I think, if it came right down to it, I can see pleading guilty to a crime you didn't committ in order to keep your children safe. I maybe wrong but I don't think so.

[GreenIce]

You know OJ can be so naive sometimes about who he trusts, yet turn around and be brillant in something where he is readily condemned. He gives interviews for a book about his relationship with Nicole, something he has wanted to tell for a long time, gets money for doing it, and allows an untrue chapter to be put in it about the murders. As he later said, "If the prosecution read it, they would say 'well, this is impossible." Now he has many of those who think he is guilty arguing he confessed from a scenario that is impossible. Doesn't this hurt some of his accusors credibilty? No wonder they had to lock him up.

R,

Simpson made it clear why he did the book. At least he was honest about it. I think Simpson is long past caring with people think of him. And you are right about that one chapter. It is so filled with errors and such that no one believes it. Note, Darden and other lawyers have claimed this book is not a confession. They said he gave them nothing before in a way of confession and they gave them nothing now.

I find it interesting is that the Browns' lawyer says that this book isn't even about the money, it is about his need to stay in the public eye. That link posted about RG goes into this.

[weezer]

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 07-12641-BKC-AJC
IN RE:
LORRAINE BROOKE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Debtor.
________________________________/
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
3:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
2004 EXAMINATION OF ARNELLE SIMPSON

You testified that a friend of yours, Raffles
2 Van Axle, had come up with the idea for the book. Is
3 that my correct understanding?
4 A Yeah.
5 Q And he brought that idea to you?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Did he go directly to your dad at any point
8 in time?
9 A I don't know that.
10 Q But as far as you know, he first came to you
11 with the idea?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And he asked you to do what with the idea,
14 approach your dad?
15 A He asked me what I thought about it, and
16 then -- he just asked me what I thought about it. We
17 had a discussion on that.
18 Q Do you remember about when that first came
19 up?
20 I'll try to put it in a time frame for you.
21 Lorraine Brooke Associates was formed as a corporation
22 on March 22, 2006.
23 So was it before that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q In 2005, in 2004? Do you have a recollection

Page 12
1 of how far back that went?
2 A I want to say -- I don't remember. Some time
3 in 2005.
4 Q That's fair. It was certainly before the
5 company, Lorraine Brooke Associates, was formed?

[weezer]

Page 13

14 Q So Mr. Van Axle comes to you with this idea
15 and you talk about it.
16 What did you say to him? He asked you your
17 opinion. What did you say to him?
18 A I said I had to think about it.
19 Q Did you get back to him?
20 A Yes.

Page 14

7 Q Ultimately you decided that was something you
8 would pursue; is that right?
9 A Correct.
10 Q When you say you would pursue it, to you what
11 did that mean? Did that mean that you would go to your
12 father?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Did your approach your father with the book
15 idea?
16 A Yes.

[GreenIce]

I believe O.J. told us just how the murders went down.

Hipcheck,

According the lawyers who were very close to the case, like Darden, no, he did not tell how the murders went down.

[William Anthony]

Page 13

14 Q So Mr. Van Axle comes to you with this idea
15 and you talk about it.
16 What did you say to him? He asked you your
17 opinion. What did you say to him?
18 A I said I had to think about it.
19 Q Did you get back to him?
20 A Yes.

Page 14

7 Q Ultimately you decided that was something you
8 would pursue; is that right?
9 A Correct.
10 Q When you say you would pursue it, to you what
11 did that mean? Did that mean that you would go to your
12 father?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Did your approach your father with the book
15 idea?
16 A Yes.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/Arnell_Simpson_Deposition_061307.pdf

I thought the board should read everything.

[William Anthony]

http://www.readerviews.com/InterviewGoldman.html

"Fred: I think it is also fascinating to recognize one additional fact and that is, when the killer sat down with his kids to discuss the book, they all signed off on it, all approved of it, and all expected to make money. When the $700,000 or so ultimately channeled its way down to the killer, he used the money to pay off back taxes, bills, buy a car, etc. And as best as we know, he gave no money to his kids. Now through bankruptcy, and through the fact that some of the monies that is generated by the publication of this book, monies go back to the bankruptcy court, and one of the judgment creditors is the estate of Nicole Brown, her two kids. They now will actually gain some financial, gain some money from our publication of the book when they did not when their father did it."

Who is mistaken and who is lying, as Fred has Simpson discussing it with all the kids and Arnelle says she discussed it with all the kids and says she went to her father with the book idea, but we know that some believe the beautiful Ms. Arnelle is a liar, so why credit her with the truth here?

[William Anthony]

http://www.readerviews.com/InterviewGoldman.html

"Kim: No, I think Arnelle who is the president of Lauren Brooke, you know in her deposition, we deposed her. She was the one that said, you know all of the kids sat down, we discussed the book. We sat down around the kitchen table, we discussed the book. We all agreed to do it. My younger brother and sister, Justin and Sydney, signed off signatories on the company. I mean, she confirmed it."

Who is mistaken and who is lying as Kim impeaches her dad and corroborates Ms. Arnelle?

[Its just me]

IJM,

Had Sydney or Justin had information that would have nailed their father, the Browns would have insisted they testify and this could have been done in camera. The Browns would not allow anyone to question Sydney or Justin either. It is obvious that Simpson always put Sydney and Justin first during this time. IMO, he could have made it worse by keeping the kids away from Nicole's family.

IMO, you are saying that if you were in a similar situation and your minor children had information that would help you, you would make them testify regardless of the obvious danger you are putting them in? You would risk your children's life to save you some prision time? Somehow I can't see that happening. IMO, I think, if it came right down to it, I can see pleading guilty to a crime you didn't committ in order to keep your children safe. I maybe wrong but I don't think so.
I'm saying you don't know OJ children were in danger. I don't believe for one minute they were. I'd say the Simpson small children came to more harm by OJ's abuse to their Mother than anything they would have "if" they knew anything and testified to tell it.
Why do you keep harping about my children? LOL Are you trying to give me a guilt trip because what of I think about OJ Simpson. You can't change my mind with what you post so you are going to bring my children into this. I posted clearly my thoughts and if you don't like them and approve of them...just move right along girl friend and doing so…. forget about my children.
If I were ever going to report a post your post would be it. You are way over the line and I don't appreciate it. Read my lips: My kids don't have a thing to do with OJ Simpson murdering his ex wife and her friend. FWIW They were never a fan either but they were not big on sports at the national/college level because their life was full without it. Their hero was and is still their own Dad.

Carry on but do so without posting total nonsense that includes my children.

[tv]

I can't imagine any situation where orenthal would be considered 'brilliant.' you shouldn't jump to a conclusion that because many people acknowledge the book as his confession that they buy into the whole scenario as depicted by orenthal. The truth, for me, does not lie in the physical actions he talks about (someone coming by and telling him stuff about Nicole and/or Charlie holding the knife) but rather in the circumstances and reactions of orenthal the person. I believe those to be his confession.

The simple fact that he would write anything in any book or publication where he confesses to killing the mother of his children screams guilt to me. Who cares about the details? What innocent man would do that? The answer is that they wouldn't.

[William Anthony]

The simple fact that he would write anything in any book or publication where he confesses to killing the mother of his children screams guilt to me. Who cares about the details? What innocent man would do that? The answer is that they wouldn't.

A lot of innocent men have written and signed confessions. ;)

http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Karr%20-%20KC%20Star.pdf

[weezer]

The simple fact that he would write anything in any book or publication where he confesses to killing the mother of his children screams guilt to me. Who cares about the details? What innocent man would do that? The answer is that they wouldn't.

I think it just so ironic that the NGs are defending him writing the book and then saying it was just fiction and only for money -- but only the part about how he murdered Ron and Nicole even though Ron and Nicole were both butchered is the fiction part. so I have to assume to the NGs believe it is okay for orenthal to say the horrible, horrible things he said about Nicole the person and then to describe murdering her.

Yet, Fuhrman is denigrated for participating in a screenplay -- even though there was and has never been any credible evidence that any of the things he talked about on the screenplay tapes had actually ever happened.

[tv]

I think it just so ironic that the NGs are defending him writing the book and then saying it was just fiction and only for money -- but only the part about how he murdered Ron and Nicole even though Ron and Nicole were both butchered is the fiction part. so I have to assume to the NGs believe it is okay for orenthal to say the horrible, horrible things he said about Nicole the person and then to describe murdering her.

Yet, Fuhrman is denigrated for participating in a screenplay -- even though there was and has never been any credible evidence that any of the things he talked about on the screenplay tapes had actually ever happened.

Even though the children signed off on it, Arnelle and Simpson should never even considered doing such a thing. Simpson always says in interviews that he never speaks negatively to the children about Nicole. I suppose he doesn't consider the way he demeans her in the book as speaking negatively about her. His gall never ceases to amaze me even after all these years.

[William Anthony]

I think it just so ironic that the NGs are defending him writing the book and then saying it was just fiction and only for money -- but only the part about how he murdered Ron and Nicole even though Ron and Nicole were both butchered is the fiction part. so I have to assume to the NGs believe it is okay for orenthal to say the horrible, horrible things he said about Nicole the person and then to describe murdering her.

Yet, Fuhrman is denigrated for participating in a screenplay -- even though there was and has never been any credible evidence that any of the things he talked about on the screenplay tapes had actually ever happened.

I have never said that it was appropriate for Simpson to write the book but I have said that it is a work of fiction and not a confession.

There is credible evidence as with the Britton case, the Hodge incident and what he said in his bid for early retirement.
http://smartfellowspress.com/flow_chart_%20Pavelic.htm

"Los Angeles City Attorney (professional – antagonist) In 1991 Pavelic publicly blasted City Attorney James Hahn for exonerating all 77 police officers who rampaged thought two apartments occupied by black families on Dalton Ave. in 1988, destroying property, beating people and writing graffiti on a wall. Hahn was the city attorney who received Mark Fuhrman’s letter in February ’89 describing the baseball bat incident, which resulted in O.J.’s plea of no contest to spouse abuse on the advise of his lawyer Howard Weitzman. Hahn also released to the media the ’93 tape of Nicole’s 911 call. In 1987 Mark Fuhrman shot a black armed-robber named Joseph Britton five times after he surrendered to police, planted his discarded knife by his hand and called him a n****r. Britton filed a lawsuit against the city. John Wright, the attorney who defended Fuhrman in the 1994 lawsuit, worked for the city attorney in 1987. Pavelic gave Britton’s lawyers the files he found on Fuhrman documenting his racism, thus causing the city to settle Britton’s suit out of court. Fuhrman was thus allowed to testify against O.J. Simpson as a cop with a clean record and no pending charges."

[weezer]

Even though the children signed off on it, Arnelle and Simpson should never even considered doing such a thing. Simpson always says in interviews that he never speaks negatively to the children about Nicole. I suppose he doesn't consider the way he demeans her in the book as speaking negatively about her. His gall never ceases to amaze me even after all these years.

evidently getting the younger kids (don't know about Jason) to sign off on this took some work on arnelle's part (don't know if orenthal participated) to get the kids to sign off on it. That may have been when Justin realized who murdered his mother. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Even though the children signed off on it, Arnelle and Simpson should never even considered doing such a thing. Simpson always says in interviews that he never speaks negatively to the children about Nicole. I suppose he doesn't consider the way he demeans her in the book as speaking negatively about her. His gall never ceases to amaze me even after all these years.

I see now that you are blaming both Ms. Arnelle and Simpson for the book and not addressing the issue as to who told the children as to the contradictory statements of Ms. Kim Goldman, Ms. Arnelle and Mr. Golodman, as to who lied or was mistaken.

[tv]

I'm saying you don't know OJ children were in danger. I don't believe for one minute they were. I'd say the Simpson small children came to more harm by OJ's abuse to their Mother than anything they would have "if" they knew anything and testified to tell it.
Why do you keep harping about my children? LOL Are you trying to give me a guilt trip because what of I think about OJ Simpson. You can't change my mind with what you post so you are going to bring my children into this. I posted clearly my thoughts and if you don't like them and approve of them...just move right along girl friend and doing so…. forget about my children.
If I were ever going to report a post your post would be it. You are way over the line and I don't appreciate it. Read my lips: My kids don't have a thing to do with OJ Simpson murdering his ex wife and her friend. FWIW They were never a fan either but they were not big on sports at the national/college level because their life was full without it. Their hero was and is still their own Dad.

Carry on but do so without posting total nonsense that includes my children.

Excellent post.

As far as Sydney goes, I don't think she knew a darned thing. It has been said that she was a sound sleeper and the police had to wake her up to take her to the police station. It's highly unlikely she heard or saw anything that would be of any help to either side. One poster likes to frequently make the point that she heard Nicole on the phone crying while talking to Faye. My personal opinion is that if she was crying she was talking to her ex-husband. So what if Sydney could say without doubt that Nicole was talking to Faye -- what would that prove?

[William Anthony]

evidently getting the younger kids (don't know about Jason) to sign off on this took some work on arnelle's part (don't know if orenthal participated) to get the kids to sign off on it. That may have been when Justin realized who murdered his mother. :shrug:

Are you saying that Mr. Goldman lied and that Ms. Arnelle told the truth?:);):cool:

[tv]

evidently getting the younger kids (don't know about Jason) to sign off on this took some work on arnelle's part (don't know if orenthal participated) to get the kids to sign off on it. That may have been when Justin realized who murdered his mother. :shrug:

Justin certainly had to wonder why his father would do such a thing as write a confession, whether the details are accurate or not. Even if Simpson didn't know better you would think Arnelle would have wanted to protect her younger siblings. She was upset with Simpson because her mother was forced to work at Walmart but she thought it was okay for Justin and Sydney's mother to be trashed and her death described in graphic detail for money. Good heavens, it boggles the mind. :eek:

Maybe the next book should be "I Didn't Kill Marguerite But This Is How I Would Have Done It."

[William Anthony]

Excellent post.

As far as Sydney goes, I don't think she knew a darned thing. It has been said that she was a sound sleeper and the police had to wake her up to take her to the police station. It's highly unlikely she heard or saw anything that would be of any help to either side. One poster likes to frequently make the point that she heard Nicole on the phone crying while talking to Faye. My personal opinion is that if she was crying she was talking to her ex-husband. So what if Sydney could say without doubt that Nicole was talking to Faye -- what would that prove?

I do believe that it has been said that Sydney heard mommy arguing and crying with her best friend. We will never know where that would have lead, because, IIRC, LE never investigated.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Justin certainly had to wonder why his father would do such a thing as write a confession, whether the details are accurate or not. Even if Simpson didn't know better you would think Arnelle would have wanted to protect her younger siblings. She was upset with Simpson because her mother was forced to work at Walmart but she thought it was okay for Justin and Sydney's mother to be trashed and her death described in graphic detail for money. Good heavens, it boggles the mind. :eek:

Maybe the next book should be "I Didn't Kill Marguerite But This Is How I Would Have Done It."

His father never wrote a confession and Justin certainly should realize this and not listen to the vicious public, IMHO.

[Its just me]

Excellent post. The personal comments are out of line.

As far as Sydney goes, I don't think she knew a darned thing. It has been said that she was a sound sleeper and the police had to wake her up to take her to the police station. It's highly unlikely she heard or saw anything that would be of any help to either side. One poster likes to frequently make the point that she heard Nicole on the phone crying while talking to Faye. My personal opinion is that if she was crying she was talking to her ex-husband. So what if Sydney could say without doubt that Nicole was talking to Faye -- what would that prove?

Thank you, I think the mere fact that Sydney was found sound asleep is a strong indication she didn't see or hear anything that seriously upset her. And I certainly don't believe the child heard the "hey, hey, hey" and sounds of her mother being killed and jumped in bed and went sound asleep. To my knowledge Sydney was a normal child and the fiction claiming Sydney knows something about her mother’s murder does not add up to a normal child being fast asleep. MHOO

[weezer]

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/Policenet_Fuhrman_Report.htm#[Part_I_of_X]

[tv]

Thank you, I think the mere fact that Sydney was found sound asleep is a strong indication she didn't see or hear anything that seriously upset her. And I certainly don't believe the child heard the "hey, hey, hey" and sounds of her mother being killed and jumped in bed and went sound asleep. To my knowledge Sydney was a normal child and the fiction claiming Sydney knows something about her mother’s murder does not add up to a normal child being fast asleep. MHOO

That's another thing I've thought about -- Sydney wouldn't have heard her mother being murdered and just gone back to sleep. She would have known the dog was howling for a reason and gone to investigate. Unless Sydney herself says otherwise I'll always believe she slept through the whole thing.

[tv]

I know at one time I posted a link to a discussion in court between the judge, defense, and prosecution about talking to the kids. I'll see if I can find it again.

I hope you can find it. I'd like to read it again. :)

[tv]

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/Policenet_Fuhrman_Report.htm#[Part_I_of_X]

Interesting link. Still no evidence against Det. Fuhrman, I see.

[Hotwater]

The Moderator will determine member timeouts based on lack of civility, which includes:
· Rudeness to others
· Foul language
· Failure to follow the guidelines of discussion
· Repeated bashing of each other -- everyone's entitled to their opinion. Please find a way to be respectful even if you don't agree.


A TIMEOUT IS A BAN OF ANYWHERE FROM 3-10 DAY'S TBD BY THE MODERATOR. REPEAT OFFENDERS RISK BEING PERMANENTLY BANNED!

[William Anthony]

That's another thing I've thought about -- Sydney wouldn't have heard her mother being murdered and just gone back to sleep. She would have known the dog was howling for a reason and gone to investigate. Unless Sydney herself says otherwise I'll always believe she slept through the whole thing.

IIRC, it is alleged that Sydney heard the argument over the phone prior to the time of the murders and that she never heard anything during the time of the murders.

[William Anthony]

Interesting link. Still no evidence against Det. Fuhrman, I see.

Did you see this, "The information contained in this profile was gathered from the Los Angeles Police Department Report of the MARK FUHRMAN TASK FORCE EXECUTIVE "?

[weezer]

Interesting link. Still no evidence against Det. Fuhrman, I see.

I thought maybe I'd missed it. ;) I don't think I've ever known the exact number of investigations done on Fuhrman -- LAPD, DOJ, criminal defence. IIRC, none produced evidence that what was on the screenplay tapes was anything more than fiction.

[tv]

I thought maybe I'd missed it. ;) I don't think I've ever known the exact number of investigations done on Fuhrman -- LAPD, DOJ, criminal defence. IIRC, none produced evidence that what was on the screenplay tapes was anything more than fiction.

I've never seen any evidence that it was anything more than fiction for the screenplay. I'm trying to remember if Mark Fuhrman took a lie detector test at some point. I'll check his book.

ETA: Mark Fuhrman did take a polygraph administered by Paul Minor who had set up the polygraph division at the FBI academy. He passed with flying colors not only answering questions about the bloody glove but about Peggy York, Ito's wife.

[William Anthony]

I thought maybe I'd missed it. ;) I don't think I've ever known the exact number of investigations done on Fuhrman -- LAPD, DOJ, criminal defence. IIRC, none produced evidence that what was on the screenplay tapes was anything more than fiction.

The one from the DOJ, which has been posted ad nauseum, IMHO, said that while they are not saying that MF did nothing wrong, the statute of limitations had run out on those incidents. Implicit in this is that MF did something wrong but to prosecute would be a waste of time due to the affirmative defense of the expiration of the statute of limitations.

[fgump2]

A lot of innocent men have written and signed confessions. ;)

http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Karr%20-%20KC%20Star.pdf

I barely skimmed the article, but I was aware of the fact that some confessions are false. I will list some cases in which confessions were false. I will try to show that none of these correspond to the situation Mr. Simpson was in.

One reason for false confession is that the police broke down somebody’s resistance, wore them out. As a kid I read about some man who confessed to a murder he didn’t commit after more than 18 hours of questioning. No need for a psychologist to explain that one. This may have been why the teenagers in the central park jogger case confessed.

Some people may confess to get attention or perhaps even financial benefits. John Mack Carr, the guy who confessed to killing and molesting a young girl in Colorado, may have done it for publicity, or a free plane ride, or out of masochism. Does anyone care? I don’t. There are probably people in this country who think they killed Julius Caesar. I am willing to feel sorry for them, but I don’t care what motivated them.

If a killing gets a lot of publicity there are often a lot of false confessions. When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and killed, there were at least 100 confessions to taking part in it; maybe over 200. The Ted Bundy killings also produced some false confessions. Some may do it out of masochism or a desire for publicity. I am not interested in learning more about it, although of course police sometimes would like a way to weed these people out.

None of these situations are similar to the situation Mr. Simpson was in. The main reason I think the book (if I did it) indicates guilt is that it is in such poor taste that it indicates that Simpson was/is a psychopath – this doesn’t prove guilt, but it suggests it.

One point I would like to make is that if we are going to realize that confessions may be false, then maybe we should realize that a cop who confessed to planting evidence may have been making a false confession. This is especially true if the tape was being made to create a work of fiction. Fuhrman probably thought his confession would never enter the public arena. Mr. Simpson knew his would.

[weezer]

The information, covering Fuhrman's career as a police officer from 1975 until he retired in 1995, was reviewed by attorneys from the civil rights division and the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles to determine if it contained evidence of prosecutable federal civil rights violations. But the reviewers came up with only possible incidents that occurred before 1988, the department source said.

[tv]

The information, covering Fuhrman's career as a police officer from 1975 until he retired in 1995, was reviewed by attorneys from the civil rights division and the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles to determine if it contained evidence of prosecutable federal civil rights violations. But the reviewers came up with only possible incidents that occurred before 1988, the department source said.

Mark Fuhrman says in his book that four government agencies investigated him. Nothing found.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman says in his book that four government agencies investigated him. Nothing found.

MF says, enough said.:);):cool:

[weezer]

I've never seen any evidence that it was anything more than fiction for the screenplay. I'm trying to remember if Mark Fuhrman took a lie detector test at some point. I'll check his book.

ETA: Mark Fuhrman did take a polygraph administered by Paul Minor who had set up the polygraph division at the FBI academy. He passed with flying colors not only answering questions about the bloody glove but about Peggy York, Ito's wife.

I had not heard about his lie detector test. Do you think it was really fair for him to take the test? I mean, he was under a lot of stress. I'm just saying. . .

[weezer]

I barely skimmed the article, but I was aware of the fact that some confessions are false. I will list some cases in which confessions were false. I will try to show that none of these correspond to the situation Mr. Simpson was in.

One reason for false confession is that the police broke down somebody’s resistance, wore them out. As a kid I read about some man who confessed to a murder he didn’t commit after more than 18 hours of questioning. No need for a psychologist to explain that one. This may have been why the teenagers in the central park jogger case confessed.

Some people may confess to get attention or perhaps even financial benefits. John Mack Carr, the guy who confessed to killing and molesting a young girl in Colorado, may have done it for publicity, or a free plane ride, or out of masochism. Does anyone care? I don’t. There are probably people in this country who think they killed Julius Caesar. I am willing to feel sorry for them, but I don’t care what motivated them.

If a killing gets a lot of publicity there are often a lot of false confessions. When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and killed, there were at least 100 confessions to taking part in it; maybe over 200. The Ted Bundy killings also produced some false confessions. Some may do it out of masochism or a desire for publicity. I am not interested in learning more about it, although of course police sometimes would like a way to weed these people out.

None of these situations are similar to the situation Mr. Simpson was in. The main reason I think the book (if I did it) indicates guilt is that it is in such poor taste that it indicates that Simpson was/is a psychopath – this doesn’t prove guilt, but it suggests it.

One point I would like to make is that if we are going to realize that confessions may be false, then maybe we should realize that a cop who confessed to planting evidence may have been making a false confession. This is especially true if the tape was being made to create a work of fiction. Fuhrman probably thought his confession would never enter the public arena. Mr. Simpson knew his would.

good point.

[William Anthony]

I barely skimmed the article, but I was aware of the fact that some confessions are false. I will list some cases in which confessions were false. I will try to show that none of these correspond to the situation Mr. Simpson was in.

One reason for false confession is that the police broke down somebody’s resistance, wore them out. As a kid I read about some man who confessed to a murder he didn’t commit after more than 18 hours of questioning. No need for a psychologist to explain that one. This may have been why the teenagers in the central park jogger case confessed.

Some people may confess to get attention or perhaps even financial benefits. John Mack Carr, the guy who confessed to killing and molesting a young girl in Colorado, may have done it for publicity, or a free plane ride, or out of masochism. Does anyone care? I don’t. There are probably people in this country who think they killed Julius Caesar. I am willing to feel sorry for them, but I don’t care what motivated them.

If a killing gets a lot of publicity there are often a lot of false confessions. When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and killed, there were at least 100 confessions to taking part in it; maybe over 200. The Ted Bundy killings also produced some false confessions. Some may do it out of masochism or a desire for publicity. I am not interested in learning more about it, although of course police sometimes would like a way to weed these people out.

None of these situations are similar to the situation Mr. Simpson was in. The main reason I think the book (if I did it) indicates guilt is that it is in such poor taste that it indicates that Simpson was/is a psychopath – this doesn’t prove guilt, but it suggests it.

One point I would like to make is that if we are going to realize that confessions may be false, then maybe we should realize that a cop who confessed to planting evidence may have been making a false confession. This is especially true if the tape was being made to create a work of fiction. Fuhrman probably thought his confession would never enter the public arena. Mr. Simpson knew his would.

The premise was that Simpson's work of fiction was a confession, with which I have always and continue to disagree, and that an innocent man would not confess. I provided a link that showed that innocent men confess to murder frequently. Simpson never confessed, as he qualified the book with an "If" but MF admitted to planting evidence and did not qualify it with anything. The fact that MF mentioned the statute of limitations and explained that LHM should not use the incident is further evidence that he was talking about real incidents of police abuse and corruption.

[tv]

I barely skimmed the article, but I was aware of the fact that some confessions are false. I will list some cases in which confessions were false. I will try to show that none of these correspond to the situation Mr. Simpson was in.

One reason for false confession is that the police broke down somebody’s resistance, wore them out. As a kid I read about some man who confessed to a murder he didn’t commit after more than 18 hours of questioning. No need for a psychologist to explain that one. This may have been why the teenagers in the central park jogger case confessed.

Some people may confess to get attention or perhaps even financial benefits. John Mack Carr, the guy who confessed to killing and molesting a young girl in Colorado, may have done it for publicity, or a free plane ride, or out of masochism. Does anyone care? I don’t. There are probably people in this country who think they killed Julius Caesar. I am willing to feel sorry for them, but I don’t care what motivated them.

If a killing gets a lot of publicity there are often a lot of false confessions. When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and killed, there were at least 100 confessions to taking part in it; maybe over 200. The Ted Bundy killings also produced some false confessions. Some may do it out of masochism or a desire for publicity. I am not interested in learning more about it, although of course police sometimes would like a way to weed these people out.

None of these situations are similar to the situation Mr. Simpson was in. The main reason I think the book (if I did it) indicates guilt is that it is in such poor taste that it indicates that Simpson was/is a psychopath – this doesn’t prove guilt, but it suggests it.

One point I would like to make is that if we are going to realize that confessions may be false, then maybe we should realize that a cop who confessed to planting evidence may have been making a false confession. This is especially true if the tape was being made to create a work of fiction. Fuhrman probably thought his confession would never enter the public arena. Mr. Simpson knew his would.

Excellent point. For some reason, Simpson's supporters on this board don't apply the same reason to Mark Fuhrman as they do to OJ Simpson. If they did they would have to confront some truths that don't fit into their theories of LE planting and tampering and of everyone involved with the case lying except Simpson and Arnelle. Imo, the confession book was the ultimate indicator that OJ Simpson is a double-murderer with no remorse for what he did.

[William Anthony]

Excellent point. For some reason, Simpson's supporters on this board don't apply the same reason to Mark Fuhrman as they do to OJ Simpson. If they did they would have to confront some truths that don't fit into their theories of LE planting and tampering and of everyone involved with the case lying except Simpson and Arnelle. Imo, the confession book was the ultimate indicator that OJ Simpson is a double-murderer with no remorse for what he did.

There was no false confession on MF's part, as Fgrump2 correctly, IMHO, suggested that MF never thought his statements would be made public and I am of the opinion that Simpson never confessed as he qualified his alleged confession with a very big "If" and MF did not.

[William Anthony]

I had not heard about his lie detector test. Do you think it was really fair for him to take the test? I mean, he was under a lot of stress. I'm just saying. . .

That's probably how he beat it, because he was so stressed they could not tell when he was telling the truth or lying or maybe years of practice.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman will always bear the stigma of a racist because of his words on those tapes, even if they were for a screenplay, unless…


He takes those great detective skills he thinks he has and re-examines the Bundy murder case. Without too much work, he should be able to prove that the Bundy murders were committed by someone other than OJ. There is simply no other way that he will completely lose the racist label. However, I don’t think he has the guts to look at the evidence honestly and admit he was wrong. Even though it might be tempting to be hailed as a hero for exonerating OJ, a black man, and be considered the world’s best detective, MF doesn’t have the intelligence to figure this case out.

I bid you all goodbye for now. Carry on.

Unless of course he is intelligent enough to know that to name the real killer would be his demise.

[tv]

Mark Fuhrman will always bear the stigma of a racist because of his words on those tapes, even if they were for a screenplay, unless…


He takes those great detective skills he thinks he has and re-examines the Bundy murder case. Without too much work, he should be able to prove that the Bundy murders were committed by someone other than OJ. There is simply no other way that he will completely lose the racist label. However, I don’t think he has the guts to look at the evidence honestly and admit he was wrong. Even though it might be tempting to be hailed as a hero for exonerating OJ, a black man, and be considered the world’s best detective, MF doesn’t have the intelligence to figure this case out.

I bid you all goodbye for now. Carry on.

There have been private investigators offer to investigate the case pro bono to help OJ Simpson and he declined. Why would Mark Fuhrman be any different?

[weezer]

There have been private investigators offer to investigate the case pro bono to help OJ Simpson and he declined. Why would Mark Fuhrman be any different?

gosh I wish someone would come up with a credible explanation of how orenthal's hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene and how the same fibers were found on orenthal and Ron and how Nicole's blood, Ron's blood, and orenthal's blood all showed up in the same place.

[Its just me]

Excellent point. For some reason, Simpson's supporters on this board don't apply the same reason to Mark Fuhrman as they do to OJ Simpson. If they did they would have to confront some truths that don't fit into their theories of LE planting and tampering and of everyone involved with the case lying except Simpson and Arnelle. Imo, the confession book was the ultimate indicator that OJ Simpson is a double-murderer with no remorse for what he did.

I totally agree and we all know Simpson lied.

[tv]

gosh I wish someone would come up with a credible explanation of how orenthal's hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene and how the same fibers were found on orenthal and Ron and how Nicole's blood, Ron's blood, and orenthal's blood all showed up in the same place.

I have one -- OJ Simpson did it!

[Its just me]

I had not heard about his lie detector test. Do you think it was really fair for him to take the test? I mean, he was under a lot of stress. I'm just saying. . .

I had not heard about the LD test either....Not surprised to hear he passed with flying colors either.

[tv]

I had not heard about his lie detector test. Do you think it was really fair for him to take the test? I mean, he was under a lot of stress. I'm just saying. . .

Apparently, he handles stress better than poor OJ Simpson who supposedly only failed because he was stressed. Remember, according to one poster, if Simpson had passed that would have meant he was lying or some such convoluted psychobabble. ;)

[Its just me]

gosh I wish someone would come up with a credible explanation of how orenthal's hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene and how the same fibers were found on orenthal and Ron and how Nicole's blood, Ron's blood, and orenthal's blood all showed up in the same place.

And an explanation how a size 12 pigeon toed ugly a** BM shoes were found so fast to plant their prints from fresh blood....IIRC only a few of these ugly a** shoes (OJ's words) were made and there are pictures showing OJ wearing some at some point before the killings. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

gosh I wish someone would come up with a credible explanation of how orenthal's hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene and how the same fibers were found on orenthal and Ron and how Nicole's blood, Ron's blood, and orenthal's blood all showed up in the same place.

Link please to size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene?

[William Anthony]

Apparently, he handles stress better than poor OJ Simpson who supposedly only failed because he was stressed. Remember, according to one poster, if Simpson had passed that would have meant he was lying or some such convoluted psychobabble. ;)

Or, maybe, MF is a more accomplished liar;):cool:. Remember practice makes perfect (not a Williamism)

[William Anthony]

And an explanation how a size 12 pigeon toed ugly a** BM shoes were found so fast to plant their prints from fresh blood....IIRC only a few of these ugly a** shoes (OJ's words) were made and there are pictures showing OJ wearing some at some point before the killings. :shrug:

Where are the pictures or the shoes that he allegedly wore on the night of the murders?:shrug::);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I totally agree and we all know Simpson lied.

The only alleged confession book was the one edited by the Goldmans.

[tv]

I had not heard about the LD test either....Not surprised to hear he passed with flying colors either.

I had forgotten about it until today. I think it puts OJ Simpson's polygraph failure into perspective.

[William Anthony]

I had forgotten about it until today. I think it puts OJ Simpson's polygraph failure into perspective.

He couldn't lie as good as MF, IMHO.

[tv]

And an explanation how a size 12 pigeon toed ugly a** BM shoes were found so fast to plant their prints from fresh blood....IIRC only a few of these ugly a** shoes (OJ's words) were made and there are pictures showing OJ wearing some at some point before the killings. :shrug:

There were thirty-nine of those pictures of him wearing the 'ugly-ass' shoes presented at the civil trial -- taken by more than one photographer.The NG explanation that they were doctored was discredited by the FBI photo expert, Jerry Richards. Wonder why OJ Simpson, if innocent, wasn't able to produce the shoes he wore in the photographs?

[William Anthony]

There were thirty-nine of those pictures of him wearing the 'ugly-ass' shoes presented at the civil trial -- taken by more than one photographer.The NG explanation that they were doctored was discredited by the FBI photo expert, Jerry Richards. Wonder why OJ Simpson, if innocent, wasn't able to produce the shoes he wore in the photographs?

The plaintiffs should have produced them or requested them through discovery but then come the rulings were in the socio political production. :);):cool:

[weezer]

There were thirty-nine of those pictures of him wearing the 'ugly-ass' shoes presented at the civil trial -- taken by more than one photographer.The NG explanation that they were doctored was discredited by the FBI photo expert, Jerry Richards. Wonder why OJ Simpson, if innocent, wasn't able to produce the shoes he wore in the photographs?

ahh yes -- the grand conspiracy to frame orenthal. ;)

[tv]

ahh yes -- the grand conspiracy to frame orenthal. ;)

The Grand Conspiracy always makes me chuckle. :D It's right up there with the Denver Airport being a front for the New World Order and Jim Morrison being picked up by Stephen King while hitchhiking. :tongue: I forgot to add -- Tupac's supposedly alive too. ;)

[Its just me]

There were thirty-nine of those pictures of him wearing the 'ugly-ass' shoes presented at the civil trial -- taken by more than one photographer.The NG explanation that they were doctored was discredited by the FBI photo expert, Jerry Richards. Wonder why OJ Simpson, if innocent, wasn't able to produce the shoes he wore in the photographs?



Given what he was up against in terms of evidence and legal talent, Simpson needed every break to go his way during the trial. But this time, rather than benefiting from the bloodied glove that famously didn't seem to fit, Simpson himself ended up on the wrong end of a fashion problem, in the form of those size-12 Bruno Magli lace-ups. After insisting that he had never owned such an "ugly-ass" pair of shoes, the same type worn by the killer at the crime scene, Simpson had to sit by haplessly while a total of 31 photographs, taken by two different photographers, were shown of him wearing what looked unmistakably like the Maglis in question. "Simpson could have sort of bent with the wind and said, 'I might have owned those shoes, I've owned thousands of shoes in my life,' " says Stan Goldman (no kin to the plaintiffs), a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "But he did nothing like that. He stuck himself out on a limb and the plaintiffs hacked it off."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20143471,00.html

The last sentence is just down right funny to me.

[Its just me]

ahh yes -- the grand conspiracy to frame orenthal. ;)

And to be smart enough to plant blood drops at Simpson's house when they didn't even know he had cut his finger until he flew back home. :shrug: Dang they were good. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Given what he was up against in terms of evidence and legal talent, Simpson needed every break to go his way during the trial. But this time, rather than benefiting from the bloodied glove that famously didn't seem to fit, Simpson himself ended up on the wrong end of a fashion problem, in the form of those size-12 Bruno Magli lace-ups. After insisting that he had never owned such an "ugly-ass" pair of shoes, the same type worn by the killer at the crime scene, Simpson had to sit by haplessly while a total of 31 photographs, taken by two different photographers, were shown of him wearing what looked unmistakably like the Maglis in question. "Simpson could have sort of bent with the wind and said, 'I might have owned those shoes, I've owned thousands of shoes in my life,' " says Stan Goldman (no kin to the plaintiffs), a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "But he did nothing like that. He stuck himself out on a limb and the plaintiffs hacked it off."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20143471,00.html

The last sentence is just down right funny to me.

Yep, all he had to do was admit he'd owned those shoes and then produce them. He didn't and couldn't do that. He ended up looking like a liar on the stand which of course he was.

I like that last line too -- it makes me laugh to picture him out on a limb, like in a cartoon, while the limb is being sawed off. Of course, while it's being sawed off he is non-stop talking only this time it didn't do him any good.

[fgump2]

I thought I read years ago that when the jury visited the Bundy scene (I think they visited the Bundy scene), someone had removed bushes near the crime scene so that it was easier to see from the street and sidewalk. This might have helped the defense because it would make it harder to understand why no bystanders heard or saw the crime, making it seem more plausible that the crime occurred later. If this is true, it is logical to think the defense team was behind it. A sympathetic outsider wouldn’t have known what day the jury would visit. In any case I would like to know if anyone knows anything about this.

Another question I would like to ask the posters is about a story I heard shortly after the murders. A guy with relatives in Buffalo told me that shortly after the murders a team mate from Simpson’s Buffalo Bills years was interviewed for a Buffalo newspaper and said he thought that Simpson was guilty. The team mate said that this wasn’t because of the evidence he read about; it was because of Simpson’s moral character, his use of illegal drugs, and his pattern of hostility toward the women in his life.

I’d like to find out the name of the player in question. I have lost track of the guy who told me this, although I may yet meet up with him again. The player was a starting offensive lineman on the team the year Simpson ran for a record setting 2,001 yards. I think his first name was Mark, and he had an Italian sounding last name.

Even if I could get a posting of this story and put it on the board (or get Bobaugust to load it onto his web site) it probably wouldn’t convince any of the diehard NG people on this board.

If the article exists it would prove that the press wasn’t out to get Mr. Simpson. If the press had really been out to get Simpson, the story would have reached the national level.

[GreenIce]

I'm saying you don't know OJ children were in danger. I don't believe for one minute they were. I'd say the Simpson small children came to more harm by OJ's abuse to their Mother than anything they would have "if" they knew anything and testified to tell it.
Why do you keep harping about my children? LOL Are you trying to give me a guilt trip because what of I think about OJ Simpson. You can't change my mind with what you post so you are going to bring my children into this. I posted clearly my thoughts and if you don't like them and approve of them...just move right along girl friend and doing so…. forget about my children.
If I were ever going to report a post your post would be it. You are way over the line and I don't appreciate it. Read my lips: My kids don't have a thing to do with OJ Simpson murdering his ex wife and her friend. FWIW They were never a fan either but they were not big on sports at the national/college level because their life was full without it. Their hero was and is still their own Dad.

Carry on but do so without posting total nonsense that includes my children.

IJM,

IMO, there is evidence to support that Simpson's minor children, at least Sydney may have been in danger if she testified.

I mean no offense in regards to your children. However, I have always posted that the only fair way to evaluate any case is to put your self in the defendant seat and try to view the evidence and the actions through those eyes.

I will respect your request. Again, I meant no offense.

[GreenIce]

I thought I read years ago that when the jury visited the Bundy scene (I think they visited the Bundy scene), someone had removed bushes near the crime scene so that it was easier to see from the street and sidewalk. This might have helped the defense because it would make it harder to understand why no bystanders heard or saw the crime, making it seem more plausible that the crime occurred later. If this is true, it is logical to think the defense team was behind it. A sympathetic outsider wouldn’t have known what day the jury would visit. In any case I would like to know if anyone knows anything about this.

Another question I would like to ask the posters is about a story I heard shortly after the murders. A guy with relatives in Buffalo told me that shortly after the murders a team mate from Simpson’s Buffalo Bills years was interviewed for a Buffalo newspaper and said he thought that Simpson was guilty. The team mate said that this wasn’t because of the evidence he read about; it was because of Simpson’s moral character, his use of illegal drugs, and his pattern of hostility toward the women in his life.

I’d like to find out the name of the player in question. I have lost track of the guy who told me this, although I may yet meet up with him again. The player was a starting offensive lineman on the team the year Simpson ran for a record setting 2,001 yards. I think his first name was Mark, and he had an Italian sounding last name.

Even if I could get a posting of this story and put it on the board (or get Bobaugust to load it onto his web site) it probably wouldn’t convince any of the diehard NG people on this board.

If the article exists it would prove that the press wasn’t out to get Mr. Simpson. If the press had really been out to get Simpson, the story would have reached the national level.

fgump2,

The defense had no control or say about the Bundy condo. Any decisions that were made regarding the it being emptied of its contents and any changes in the landscape were decisions made by the Brown family. I don't think any one can blame them for preparing the condo for sale.

Nicole was able to be seen the street because she was on the walk way and there was a porch light. IMO, if Simpson was the killer, he would not have left her where she could be seen from the street. It appears to me that who ever killed them wanted the bodies to be discovered sooner rather then later.

Many people have said many things about Simpson--however, they are giving their opinons, it does not mean they have any proof to support to their beliefs. However, they like anyone else, has a right to their opinons.

[Its just me]

Is there a published transcript of the civil trial. ??

This is a snip of an article written by Harry Shearer relating to what the Brown's family attorney John Q. Kelly said in court. According to the extras he added to the article it appears he was able to at least listen during opening statements.


Kelly's final flourishes are references to a couple of phone calls. After Nicole returned diamonds O.J. had given her, he called Juditha Brown. Kelly, who will obviously call Brown as a witness, quotes O.J. as telling her, "I know the last time (we split up) it was my fault. This time it's gonna hurt." Presumably drawing upon O.J.'s deposition--since no other party to this conversation can testify--Kelly says O.J. called Nicole at 9 p.m. the night of the murders, and asked her only one question: "Is Sydney (their daughter) asleep yet?"

http://www.slate.com/id/3801/entry/24305/

[tv]

Is there a published transcript of the civil trial. ??

This is a snip of an article written by Harry Shearer relating to what the Brown's family attorney John Q. Kelly said in court. According to the extras he added to the article it appears he was able to at least listen during opening statements.


Kelly's final flourishes are references to a couple of phone calls. After Nicole returned diamonds O.J. had given her, he called Juditha Brown. Kelly, who will obviously call Brown as a witness, quotes O.J. as telling her, "I know the last time (we split up) it was my fault. This time it's gonna hurt." Presumably drawing upon O.J.'s deposition--since no other party to this conversation can testify--Kelly says O.J. called Nicole at 9 p.m. the night of the murders, and asked her only one question: "Is Sydney (their daughter) asleep yet?"

http://www.slate.com/id/3801/entry/24305/

IJM, you can find searchable transcripts of the civil and criminal trials here:

http://walraven.org/simpson/

[tv]

Is there a published transcript of the civil trial. ??

This is a snip of an article written by Harry Shearer relating to what the Brown's family attorney John Q. Kelly said in court. According to the extras he added to the article it appears he was able to at least listen during opening statements.


Kelly's final flourishes are references to a couple of phone calls. After Nicole returned diamonds O.J. had given her, he called Juditha Brown. Kelly, who will obviously call Brown as a witness, quotes O.J. as telling her, "I know the last time (we split up) it was my fault. This time it's gonna hurt." Presumably drawing upon O.J.'s deposition--since no other party to this conversation can testify--Kelly says O.J. called Nicole at 9 p.m. the night of the murders, and asked her only one question: "Is Sydney (their daughter) asleep yet?"

http://www.slate.com/id/3801/entry/24305/

I hadn't thought of that being the reason he called Nicole. Of course, he'd want to know if the children were asleep yet. It's something to think about.

[GreenIce]

I do believe that it has been said that Sydney heard mommy arguing and crying with her best friend. We will never know where that would have lead, because, IIRC, LE never investigated.:);):cool:

William,

Tom Lange did acknowledge this during his testimony. However, a sidebar was called and it was dropped. MC said that only Sydney could testify to this and JC said that he would call her and MC told him that OJ would never let you call her. I think JC was bluffing and MC knew it.

IMO, because of the glove, they could not investigate this claim any more then they did the guy who stole Paula's call and was following Nicole as well as Dr. Ameli. Again, IMO.

[Hipcheck]

gosh I wish someone would come up with a credible explanation of how orenthal's hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints were at the murder scene and how the same fibers were found on orenthal and Ron and how Nicole's blood, Ron's blood, and orenthal's blood all showed up in the same place.

The only reason why O.J.'s hair, blood, fibers and size 12 BM bloody shoeprint were found at the murder scene is because he was the one who murdered Nicole and Ron.

Mark Fuhrman did take a polygraph test after the trial was over and passed when asked if he planted any evidence. Showed that he didn't palnt anything. O.J. on the other hand flunked his polygraph test.

[GreenIce]

There was no false confession on MF's part, as Fgrump2 correctly, IMHO, suggested that MF never thought his statements would be made public and I am of the opinion that Simpson never confessed as he qualified his alleged confession with a very big "If" and MF did not.

William,

I have to disagree with you, I think MF did know that his statements and the tapes were going to be made public. He already knew that at least two witnesses came forward about their encounters with him. Also, his talking to LHM after he was ordered not to, speaks volumes.

I think he also knew what lengths the DA's and the City of LA were going to go through to try to protect him. Paying a petty criminal $100,000.00 so he would not be involved in another trial for planting evidence is pretty telling.

MF knew just how important certain evidence was and he also knew if he was exposed the DA's knew their case was over before it began. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I totally agree and we all know Simpson lied.

IJM,

Since you all know that Simpson lied, then you also know why he lied. So why did the 4 detectives lie? If Simpson lied because he is guilty of a crime then that same reason applies to MF and the other detectives and members of the LAPD. Fair is fair, IMO.

[bobaugust]

I have told you that what I feel for the beautiful, poised, intelligent Ms. Arnelle is much more intense than an infatuation but yet you want to minimize my feelings and call me a liar. How can you possibly know what I feel for Ms. Arnelle? Three detectives and the video corroborated her testimony. I have never claimed that anyone was lying, save MF.

I could care less how you feel about Arnelle Simpson. What I see is that your “intense” feelings for her have evidently caused you to make some claims that you can’t support. The reality is that the three detectives didn’t testify to anything that corroborated any part of Arnelle’s fabricated impeached story. Your claim that they did is just another false claim. You say you never claimed anyone was lying is also a false claim since you made up an illogical inference to say that Arnelle was telling the truth and the five witnesses who impeached her story were lying.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Simpson was by no means poor and he obviously cared for his children, IMHO. I think he would care enough to make sure his daughter had a phone that she could use while out and about in the nightime hours. Do you think Simpson had a cell phone or did he make one up with accessories? I believe that Simpson earned enough at the time to have car phones, cell phones and land lines and probably a telegraph. :);):cool: Since the claim has been made that Simpson called her and asked her to was the alleged bloody sweatsuit, then those making the claim should produce evidence to support the claim and not say there is none but he did so.

I never said Simpson didn’t have a car cell phone. We know Arnelle Simpson had a land line phone in her room. That would have been the phone Simpson called after he landed in Chicago. Since land line telephone records do not show incoming phone calls unless they are collect calls then there would be no record of that call on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You say mistaken and I say, IMHO, they lied. Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. The tecnology showed that Ms Arnelle was correct/truthful. Veritas in onus, veritas in omnibus.

After the detectives woke up Arnelle Simpson and asked her if she knew where her father was they said they needed to go inside the house and check, and did she have a key. The detectives all assumed the doors to the house were locked. Arnelle got a key and led the detectives to the back door that she then opened and let them into the house. Since Arnelle had a key in her hand before she opened the door the detectives assumed that she had unlocked it. There was no reason for the detectives to lie about this, they were simply mistaken.

Of course you would think the police lied since you are incapable of accepting the realty that someone you have “intense” feelings for was proven to have lied when four detectives and Kato Kaelin all impeached her fabricated story.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not Phillips. He testified that he walked into the living room where the french doors were.

Phillips said they walked through the living room area to the kitchen and then to the maid’s room. The room he referred to as the living room area was the family room and yes it did have two French doors.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I had not heard about his lie detector test. Do you think it was really fair for him to take the test? I mean, he was under a lot of stress. I'm just saying. . .

MF may have been under a lot of stress.We know oj was buy some say he failed a unfinished test.

[GreenIce]

After the detectives woke up Arnelle Simpson and asked her if she knew where her father was they said they needed to go inside the house and check, and did she have a key. The detectives all assumed the doors to the house were locked. Arnelle got a key and led the detectives to the back door that she then opened and let them into the house. Since Arnelle had a key in her hand before she opened the door the detectives assumed that she had unlocked it. There was no reason for the detectives to lie about this, they were simply mistaken.

Of course you would think the police lied since you are incapable of accepting the realty that someone you have “intense” feelings for was proven to have lied when four detectives and Kato Kaelin all impeached her fabricated story.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

That is not correct. Arnelle told them where her father was, out of town and she did not know exactly where he was but she did know the person to contact to find this information out.

It has also been proven through testimony that the detectives were very selective in what they heard, when they heard it and how much of it they heard.

There is no escaping the fact, the undisputed fact, that they allowed Arnelle to unlock the door, turn off the alarm and enter the house before them.

It is also a fact that Simpson could have easily told Kato, when he told them to set the alarm, not to bother, that he would contact Arnelle and have her set the alarm when she came home. He gave the code to Kato.

Arnelle did not need a "legal" excuse to enter the house. The detectives did need a legal excuse, in fact, they needed several.

Vanatter lied on a search warrant, claiming two witnesses gave statements they assumed Simpson was inside the main house. That is not true. Even giving VA the benefit of the doubt on this issue, when he wrote the search warrant, he knew the trip was in fact planned.

His comments about suspecting Simpson as soon as he saw glove makes no sense, unless, he is lying about what he knew and when he knew it.

You are wrong about public telephone records, they are kept. In fact, Faye Resnick went to court to block the defense's request for the public telephone records at the rehab center.

I will bet everything I own, when Petrocelli came up with this fantasy, he knew the public phone records did not indicate any such telephone calls or knew they would never be allowed into evidence. In other words, he knew he did not have proof when he made these accusations against Arnelle.

You also forget that not one detective or SID member testified to the contents of the washer. Not one of them testified that the clothes were wet and not one of them testified they handled them and that they were not collected because it appeared no blood was on them.

You also forget about the second search warrant where VA clearly writes that it is unclear if this sweat suit even exists but if it does, they were going to seize it.

MF impeaches Kato's testimony about this or Kato impeaches MF on this issue. So who is impeaching who?

As far as I am concerned because the LAPD used Arnelle and Kato as human shields and showed no concern for their safety, is more then enough evidence to declare who was or could have honestly been mistaken, who was telling the truth and was, with out a shadow of a doubt, was lying.

This issue is closed.

[martin II]

I believe O.J. told us just how the murders went down.

If you believe the 'murder chapter" was accurate then you have to believe Parks testimony was false, oj was not in the walkway, no murder items were in a bag and the blood drops in the Rockingham driveway were planted. There is no way around it. imo

[martin II]

Phillips said they walked through the living room area to the kitchen and then to the maid’s room. The room he referred to as the living room area was the family room and yes it did have two French doors.

bobaugust

The only french doors in the house were in the living room. you know that.

[GreenIce]

MF may have been under a lot of stress.We know oj was buy some say he failed a unfinished test.

Martin,

The lie detector test is another example how the media either refused to report the true circumstances of this test.

MF had how many years to prepare for his test? He was able to write his own questions? MF passing a lie detector test means nothing. IMO, if Simpson took the test within the guidelines and he passed it, the G's who believe this test to mean something would say that it meant nothing at all. That of course he would pass it because he is a pyscho.

Another red herring subject of the G's, IMO.

[martin II]

ITJ,

The LAPD knew that Sydney had overheard her mother fighting and crying on the telephone. Yet they should no interest in this. Even after claiming that this person should have been on their "potential" suspect list.

We have one witness who called Nicole and said Nicole was terrified that night and this witness suggested she call a friend to stay with her.

We have a phone call at 10:30 p.m. about two bodies on Bundy.

One book claims that Sydney also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and it was not her father's voice and we don't know if she would have been able to recognize Ron's voice.

Simpson refused to allow Sydney to testify and IMO, she had the key evidence to free him or to nail him.

IMO, Simpson knows that he didn't do it, he knows who did it, knows he didn't do it, but he also knows that his daughter is a witness and will be a witness if this person was ever arrested. IMO.

It is also possible that Nicole told her daughter the name of the person that caused her to cry. The friend.

[martin II]

Martin,

The lie detector test is another example how the media either refused to report the true circumstances of this test.

MF had how many years to prepare for his test? He was able to write his own questions? MF passing a lie detector test means nothing. IMO, if Simpson took the test within the guidelines and he passed it, the G's who believe this test to mean something would say that it meant nothing at all. That of course he would pass it because he is a pyscho.

Another red herring subject of the G's, IMO.

I do remember MF being able to write his LD test questions. How was that possible.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman says in his book that four government agencies investigated him. Nothing found.

Thats not true.

[martin II]

I barely skimmed the article, but I was aware of the fact that some confessions are false. I will list some cases in which confessions were false. I will try to show that none of these correspond to the situation Mr. Simpson was in.

One reason for false confession is that the police broke down somebody’s resistance, wore them out. As a kid I read about some man who confessed to a murder he didn’t commit after more than 18 hours of questioning. No need for a psychologist to explain that one. This may have been why the teenagers in the central park jogger case confessed.

Some people may confess to get attention or perhaps even financial benefits. John Mack Carr, the guy who confessed to killing and molesting a young girl in Colorado, may have done it for publicity, or a free plane ride, or out of masochism. Does anyone care? I don’t. There are probably people in this country who think they killed Julius Caesar. I am willing to feel sorry for them, but I don’t care what motivated them.

If a killing gets a lot of publicity there are often a lot of false confessions. When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and killed, there were at least 100 confessions to taking part in it; maybe over 200. The Ted Bundy killings also produced some false confessions. Some may do it out of masochism or a desire for publicity. I am not interested in learning more about it, although of course police sometimes would like a way to weed these people out.

None of these situations are similar to the situation Mr. Simpson was in. The main reason I think the book (if I did it) indicates guilt is that it is in such poor taste that it indicates that Simpson was/is a psychopath – this doesn’t prove guilt, but it suggests it.

One point I would like to make is that if we are going to realize that confessions may be false, then maybe we should realize that a cop who confessed to planting evidence may have been making a false confession. This is especially true if the tape was being made to create a work of fiction. Fuhrman probably thought his confession would never enter the public arena. Mr. Simpson knew his would.



Most false confessions are made as a result of le abuse of the accused and police trickery.imo

[Its just me]

IJM, you can find searchable transcripts of the civil and criminal trials here:

http://walraven.org/simpson/

A big huge Thank You, I've started reading OJ's deposition. Time consuming but interesting.

[martin II]

did you think it was odd that it was arnelle who pitched the idea of the book to orenthal?

Absolutely not odd at all.
It was a business opportunity brought to her by another person. She had to discuss it with her father.

Oj like all the other people that wrote books had a right to write his own book.
After all the other books were about him and he had been found not guilty.He needed the money for himself and his family.

example:


KING: Philadelphia. Hello.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. Larry, I want to ask this question. Everyone on your panel who has made money on this case, have you donated all your profits to the Nicole Simpson Foundation?

KING: Rosey hasn't made any money on the case. Have you donated any of the money received for -- as an attorney?

ALLRED: I have not made any money on this case.

KING: You didn't charge your clients?

ALLRED: It was a pro bono effort. Having said that, however, I have supported their foundation over the years with contributions., the Nicole Brown Foundation which has worked to prevent domestic violence. And I just have only wonderful words to say about Lou and Juditha Brown and Denise and Dominique and Tanya (ph). And they have not only continued to fight against domestic violence and try to prevent this from happening to anyone else, but they have also continued to be loving family members to Sydney and Justin.

KING: Chris, have you made money off this?

DARDEN: Well, I wrote a book and I made some money off the book that I wrote, but I like to think that, you know, the money I made was not money from this case but money from, you know, four years of law school, four years of college and 15 years in a trial court.

KING: It's a fair question, though. Tom?

LANGE: Yes, I made money. We wrote a book, and quite frankly, it was the only way to get our story out. And I kind of laugh about that because if I had stayed on the police department one more year, I'd have made more as a cop in one year than I did on that whole book.

KING: But you didn't think of contributing funds, extra funds you had to...

LANGE: I did not contribute to that particular charity. I do have charities that I do contribute to.

KING: John Kelly?

KELLY: I've still got to write my book, Larry. So I don't know what to do with the money yet.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: How about fees you got in the civil case?

KELLY: That was a loss-leader. You know, that was -- that was -- I had a lot of it covered by the public, as a matter of fact. I certainly didn't profit from it. I loved doing it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And no, there was no profit there from that case. And as I said, when the book comes out, you can revisit me on it.

[martin II]

Martin,

The lie detector test is another example how the media either refused to report the true circumstances of this test.

MF had how many years to prepare for his test? He was able to write his own questions? MF passing a lie detector test means nothing. IMO, if Simpson took the test within the guidelines and he passed it, the G's who believe this test to mean something would say that it meant nothing at all. That of course he would pass it because he is a pyscho.

Another red herring subject of the G's, IMO.

There are many red herrings offered here. Most personal attacks on oj and his family members that has nothing to do with the charge of murder.

[martin II]

I had not heard about the LD test either....Not surprised to hear he passed with flying colors either.

Which really proves that LD test are not reliable in a search for the truth.

What were the questions and who wrote them?

[weezer]

I hadn't thought of that being the reason he called Nicole. Of course, he'd want to know if the children were asleep yet. It's something to think about.

I believe it was him (Mommy's friend) on the phone that made Nicole cry. I believe he was threatening her in that call. I believe that the knife on the kitchen counter was probably a direct result of that call.

[martin II]

I believe it was him (Mommy's friend) on the phone that made Nicole cry. I believe he was threatening her in that call. I believe that the knife on the kitchen counter was probably a direct result of that call.

The other possibility is she cried as a result of the 30 minute call from faye or a call from some of Fays friends that came to Nicoles house that she said she was afraid of.

[martin II]

I believe it was him (Mommy's friend) on the phone that made Nicole cry. I believe he was threatening her in that call. I believe that the knife on the kitchen counter was probably a direct result of that call.

You think nicoles daughter would speak of oj as "mommy's friend " or 'DADDY"

[tv]

I believe it was him (Mommy's friend) on the phone that made Nicole cry. I believe he was threatening her in that call. I believe that the knife on the kitchen counter was probably a direct result of that call.

I agree. It makes much more sense that it was Simpson making her cry than Faye. I've never thought the knife was laying out on the counter for any other reason than protection. The rest of the kitchen was immaculate and I can't see a mother carelessly leaving a knife out when she has young children in the house.

[tv]

A big huge Thank You, I've started reading OJ's deposition. Time consuming but interesting.

You're welcome. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

Tom Lange did acknowledge this during his testimony. However, a sidebar was called and it was dropped. MC said that only Sydney could testify to this and JC said that he would call her and MC told him that OJ would never let you call her. I think JC was bluffing and MC knew it.

IMO, because of the glove, they could not investigate this claim any more then they did the guy who stole Paula's call and was following Nicole as well as Dr. Ameli. Again, IMO.

A rush to judgment.

[William Anthony]

I have never been able to confirm that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy. Does anyone know where to confirm this?

[William Anthony]

I could care less how you feel about Arnelle Simpson. What I see is that your “intense” feelings for her have evidently caused you to make some claims that you can’t support. The reality is that the three detectives didn’t testify to anything that corroborated any part of Arnelle’s fabricated impeached story. Your claim that they did is just another false claim. You say you never claimed anyone was lying is also a false claim since you made up an illogical inference to say that Arnelle was telling the truth and the five witnesses who impeached her story were lying.

bobaugust

I have asked you to stop the false accusations against me and, if you do not, then I will be forced to report you, as I have asked you to post one post where I claimed anyone lied, except for MF. You were the one that continued to say I was infatuated with Arnelle, despite my denials. If you don't care why mention it?:) I have made no claims. The reality is that all three detectives testified that they saw Ms. Arnelle unlock the door and the only door that could be unlocked was the front, which Ms. Arnelle beautifully and truthfully, IMHO, testified she thereby entered the house with those fortunate detectives. The rules require us to be respectful of others opinions/inferences and calling another poster's inference illogical isn't being respectful, IMHO. I am only using the language that so many here use when it comes to some when I say that, IMHO, the detectives lied. :);):cool:

[martin II]

I have never been able to confirm that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy. Does anyone know where to confirm this?

Deedrick didn't in his diagram of the tracks thats for sure. Thats just a uninformed rummor as fas i can see.:cool:

[William Anthony]

I never said Simpson didn’t have a car cell phone. We know Arnelle Simpson had a land line phone in her room. That would have been the phone Simpson called after he landed in Chicago. Since land line telephone records do not show incoming phone calls unless they are collect calls then there would be no record of that call on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records.

bobaugust

Do you know that Ms. Arnelle did not have a cell phone? Please provide proof of your claim stated as fact that, "Since land line telephone records do not show incoming phone calls unless they are collect calls then there would be no record of that call on Arnelle Simpson’s telephone records"?

[William Anthony]

After the detectives woke up Arnelle Simpson and asked her if she knew where her father was they said they needed to go inside the house and check, and did she have a key. The detectives all assumed the doors to the house were locked. Arnelle got a key and led the detectives to the back door that she then opened and let them into the house. Since Arnelle had a key in her hand before she opened the door the detectives assumed that she had unlocked it. There was no reason for the detectives to lie about this, they were simply mistaken.

Of course you would think the police lied since you are incapable of accepting the realty that someone you have “intense” feelings for was proven to have lied when four detectives and Kato Kaelin all impeached her fabricated story.

bobaugust

I do not have to make up "intense" excuses for anyone. :) I simply read the testimony and did not read where the detectives said they assumed Ms. Arnelle unlocked the door but did read that the said she unlocked the door. Who is making the assumptions because of "intense" feelings?:);):cool: