View Full Version : Random Discussions On The Case
martin II
10-13-2009, 11:05 PM
You mean Gretchen Stockdale? IIRC, she didn't seem interested.
Paula's call didn't cause him to flip out. It was just another factor that contributed to his buiding rage. Obviously, he was only interested in her for one reason but he couldn't handle the rejection.
She visited him when he was released and she was a defense witness. With people like GS and paula he obviously had better choices.imo
Who did fred make a deal with when he tried to sell the book?
Mr. Goldman isn't in the same position as OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson wrote the book and trashed the mother of his children and described her death in gory detail. Mr. Goldman had to market the book or it would have reverted back to Simpson. Besides, Mr. Goldman didn't kill Ron and Nicole -- OJ Simpson did.
She visited him when he was released and she was a defense witness. With people like GS and paula he obviously had better choices.imo
Better choices than who?
OJ said he knew what the public thought of him and he didn't care. he had moved on.
he made a deal with HC. i don't think he cared that you saw them as the devil.
fred sold the book and made money on the death of of his son. did he deal with the same devil?
Making a deal with the devil is an expression. I don't think the actual devil offered him a contract. FYI he doesn't care that you support him in everything he says and does either.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 05:44 AM
It has been my experience that the one that the one who owns and hires someone to drive the truck does the dumping.
The Boys
10-14-2009, 08:31 AM
It was not relevant in the criminal trial, according to the judge. I am not sure about the socio political production.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious this thread is random discussions on the case ... doesn't matter if it was brought up in either trial. A case has more to it than whats brought up in trial.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 09:07 AM
At the risk of pointing out the obvious this thread is random discussions on the case ... doesn't matter if it was brought up in either trial. A case has more to it than whats brought up in trial.
At the risk of pointing out what may or may not be obvious, depending on the training one has in a specific area, and not desiring to be rude but to be of some informative purpose,
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/case-term.html
"case
1) A cause of action, lawsuit, or the right to sue (as in, "Do I have a case?"). 2) A written decision of a court that is reported in official "reporters" and can be cited as precedent for other cases."
Since you mentioned the legal term, relevant, and the legal term case, the obvious is that the evidence, which was heard in the case, was heard, because it was ruled to be relevant and the information, which was not heard, was not heard, because it was ruled to be not relevant.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/266380/Evidence-Outline-061122
martin II
10-14-2009, 09:24 AM
Making a deal with the devil is an expression. I don't think the actual devil offered him a contract. FYI he doesn't care that you support him in everything he says and does either.
i know it is a expression i was asking if the same expression applied to fred.
i support the jury finding that it was not proven that oj cimmited the crime he was accused of.
martin II
10-14-2009, 09:29 AM
Mr. Goldman isn't in the same position as OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson wrote the book and trashed the mother of his children and described her death in gory detail. Mr. Goldman had to market the book or it would have reverted back to Simpson. Besides, Mr. Goldman didn't kill Ron and Nicole -- OJ Simpson did.
Fred did not have to do anything. He first said the book should not see the light of day. that was when it belonged to someone else.When it was given to him and money was in sight he decided to do everything in his power to make ALL the money selling the story about the death of his son. He did what the court would not allow LBA to legally do with their product.
Its just me
10-14-2009, 10:44 AM
She may have cared for him as a longtime companion and the father of her children but I don't think she was 'in love' with him. She was done with him, he knew it and thought the IRS letter would send her back to Rockingham. When it didn't and he knew it was over for good he killed her.
This was shown to Jason in his deposition.....I guess this was something OJ said to Nicole and she had made notes.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any information about that?
A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 10:57 AM
"A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, I'm going to ask him a couple questions about that.
MR. LEONARD: Was that part of a question, what you just --
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, it is.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead. Go ahead.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you ever heard -- well, first of all, were you aware of any argument between Nicole and O.J. on -- along the lines of what Nicole wrote in her notes?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, not like this. This doesn't even sound like he talks.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: My next question was: Have you ever heard your father use language like that --
A: No.
Q: -- towards Nicole?
A: The C word? No way. No. Not like that.
Q: You know of any reason why Nicole would make such things up?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't. No, I don't.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever hear your father curse at Nicole like other than the C word, call her a ***** and things like that?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: No.
Q: Never?
A: I've heard him cuss, but not call her names.
Q: You ever hear him call her a ***** to her face?
A: Not that I remember he ever called her a *****.
Q: Nicole ever tell you that she was afraid of O.J. Simpson?
A: No. "
weezer
10-14-2009, 11:06 AM
At the risk of pointing out the obvious this thread is random discussions on the case ... doesn't matter if it was brought up in either trial. A case has more to it than whats brought up in trial.
you are so right! writing on this message board is like saying you're from timbucktoo -- no one knows where it is or even cares EXCEPT the people that live in timbucktoo and/or write on this board. No one who regulary posts on this board is a lawyer/judge -- we're all just people with an interest in the case and the 'who/what/where/when/why' of the case. :eek:
weezer
10-14-2009, 11:11 AM
This was shown to Jason in his deposition.....I guess this was something OJ said to Nicole and she had made notes.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any information about that?
A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
this is the young man who destroyed a statue of his dad with a baseball bat, didn't see the cuts on his dad's hands (even when he SHOULD have), and by many of the conspiracy theorists and NG's believe he's the 'real murderer'. Although, I have to admit, that last one the NG's have been unable to come up with how Jason had his dad's blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. :shrug:
Its just me
10-14-2009, 11:17 AM
you are so right! writing on this message board is like saying you're from timbucktoo -- no one knows where it is or even cares EXCEPT the people that live in timbucktoo and/or write on this board. No one who regulary posts on this board is a lawyer/judge -- we're all just people with an interest in the case and the 'who/what/where/when/why' of the case. :eek:
I totally agree and anything I want to put on here I'm going to...until Hotwater stops me. If someone is having a problem they need to use the ignore feature like I'm doing. My posts helps me keep up with things if nothing else.
I'm including where Jason said the knife the judge collected was found because that was news to me....I knew about the knife but never knew where it was collected.
I appreciate you and TV having patience with me.
Q: Were you aware that he bought a knife in early May of 1994 at a Los Angeles cutlery shop?
A: Now I am, yes.
Q: But not at the time?
A: No.
Q: And you never saw the knife that he bought at the cutlery shop?
A: Have I ever seen it?
Q: Prior to Nicole's death.
A: I think.
Q: Where did you see it?
A: It was in my dad's bathroom.
Q: When did you see it there?
A: When the judge came by to pick it up.
Q: You were there at the time?
A: Yeah.
Q: And you saw the judge find the knife?
A: I saw the judge, yeah.
Q: Where did he find it in your dad's bathroom?
A: There's a vanity and two mirrors this way (Indicating) and a mirror that way (Indicating). You know, you open the mirror and that's where you put medicines.
Q: Surprise you to see a knife in there?
A: Sort of, yeah.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 11:59 AM
In case there are those who do not know where or what Timbuktu was.
http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/history.html
It is in the tradition of those who founded Timbuktu with the emphasis on knowledge that I made my post and it does not matter whether we are judges, lawyers, legal practitioners or leaned lay people, if we aspire to be all that we can be and seek knowledge, IMHO. However, I am aware that all are not interested in seeking knowledge and are only here to voice an opinion, which allows them to disagree with whether or not something was or should have been a part of the case based upon it's admissibility, without any consideration as to why some information was not admitted, and, therefore, desire to discuss issuse that, IMHO and I believe in that of the judge's, are more prejudicial than probative. Do not let my attempts to share knowledge that I have acquired in anyway deter, nor was it meant to deter, those who wish to discuss the issues that are more prejudicial than probative. Get your message out on this message board and may all have the same privilege.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 12:05 PM
The young man, who took a baseball bat to his father's statue, may have realized how damaging it would look, whether or not the son was the murderer, if he committed perjury and, unlike another, may have respected and adhered to his oath before God when he gave the aforestated testimony.
"A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, I'm going to ask him a couple questions about that.
MR. LEONARD: Was that part of a question, what you just --
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, it is.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead. Go ahead.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you ever heard -- well, first of all, were you aware of any argument between Nicole and O.J. on -- along the lines of what Nicole wrote in her notes?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, not like this. This doesn't even sound like he talks.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: My next question was: Have you ever heard your father use language like that --
A: No.
Q: -- towards Nicole?
A: The C word? No way. No. Not like that.
Q: You know of any reason why Nicole would make such things up?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't. No, I don't.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever hear your father curse at Nicole like other than the C word, call her a ***** and things like that?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: No.
Q: Never?
A: I've heard him cuss, but not call her names.
Q: You ever hear him call her a ***** to her face?
A: Not that I remember he ever called her a *****.
Q: Nicole ever tell you that she was afraid of O.J. Simpson?
A: No. "
weezer
10-14-2009, 12:58 PM
I totally agree and anything I want to put on here I'm going to...until Hotwater stops me. If someone is having a problem they need to use the ignore feature like I'm doing. My posts helps me keep up with things if nothing else.
I'm including where Jason said the knife the judge collected was found because that was news to me....I knew about the knife but never knew where it was collected.
I appreciate you and TV having patience with me.
Q: Were you aware that he bought a knife in early May of 1994 at a Los Angeles cutlery shop?
A: Now I am, yes.
Q: But not at the time?
A: No.
Q: And you never saw the knife that he bought at the cutlery shop?
A: Have I ever seen it?
Q: Prior to Nicole's death.
A: I think.
Q: Where did you see it?
A: It was in my dad's bathroom.
Q: When did you see it there?
A: When the judge came by to pick it up.
Q: You were there at the time?
A: Yeah.
Q: And you saw the judge find the knife?
A: I saw the judge, yeah.
Q: Where did he find it in your dad's bathroom?
A: There's a vanity and two mirrors this way (Indicating) and a mirror that way (Indicating). You know, you open the mirror and that's where you put medicines.
Q: Surprise you to see a knife in there?
A: Sort of, yeah.
okay -- anyone else think it is just weird that a large cutlery knife was hidden in orenthal's medicine cabinet? I mean, he had been given tons of swiss army knives over the years -- some just prior to the murders - but he buys a very expensive, large cutlery knife and puts it in his medicine cabinet?! :eek:
QA - Jason
Q: Surprise you to see a knife in there?
A: Sort of, yeah.
Fred did not have to do anything. He first said the book should not see the light of day. that was when it belonged to someone else.When it was given to him and money was in sight he decided to do everything in his power to make ALL the money selling the story about the death of his son. He did what the court would not allow LBA to legally do with their product.
Good for Mr. Goldman! It's certainly small compensation for the loss of his son.
okay -- anyone else think it is just weird that a large cutlery knife was hidden in orenthal's medicine cabinet? I mean, he had been given tons of swiss army knives over the years -- some just prior to the murders - but he buys a very expensive, large cutlery knife and puts it in his medicine cabinet?! :eek:
QA - Jason
Q: Surprise you to see a knife in there?
A: Sort of, yeah.
That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone keeping a large cutlery knife in their medicine cabinet. It's just more bizarre behavior on his part.
I totally agree and anything I want to put on here I'm going to...until Hotwater stops me. If someone is having a problem they need to use the ignore feature like I'm doing. My posts helps me keep up with things if nothing else.
I'm including where Jason said the knife the judge collected was found because that was news to me....I knew about the knife but never knew where it was collected.
I appreciate you and TV having patience with me. *snipped*
You're welcome, IJM, but no patience with you is required on our part. You've brought up some very interesting topics and you make a significant contribution to the board. I think you're a breath of fresh air around here! :)
weezer
10-14-2009, 01:22 PM
That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone keeping a large cutlery knife in their medicine cabinet. It's just more bizarre behavior on his part.
so -- he had an empty knife box sitting on the edge of the bathtub and another one hidden in the medicine cabinet. What's up with that? surely no one could consider that normal behavior.
weezer
10-14-2009, 01:24 PM
You're welcome, IJM, but no patience with you is required on our part. You've brought up some very interesting topics and you make a significant contribution to the board. I think you're a breath of fresh air around here! :)
:beer::beer:
This was shown to Jason in his deposition.....I guess this was something OJ said to Nicole and she had made notes.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any information about that?
A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
I don't have a problem believing this is a true account of the way he talked to her. He wanted to punish her as much as possible. Apparently, this wasn't enough -- he had to kill her to have complete control.
weezer
10-14-2009, 01:27 PM
That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone keeping a large cutlery knife in their medicine cabinet. It's just more bizarre behavior on his part.
LOL -- you mean you don't keep your kitchen knives in your bathroom? it's the fad that orenthal started but as far as I know, it never caught on -- he kept leaving his knives at other people's houses. :tongue:
weezer
10-14-2009, 01:29 PM
I don't have a problem believing this is a true account of the way he talked to her. He wanted to punish her as much as possible. Apparently, this wasn't enough -- he had to kill her to have complete control.
there was no reason for her not to write the truth -- in a diary, locked up in a safe deposit box -- with her will. :(
so -- he had an empty knife box sitting on the edge of the bathtub and another one hidden in the medicine cabinet. What's up with that? surely no one could consider that normal behavior.
I certainly don't consider it normal. I think his obsession with knives and obsession with Nicole finally collided head on.
there was no reason for her not to write the truth -- in a diary, locked up in a safe deposit box -- with her will. :(
I agree and even Martin said she refused to tell lies about Simpson in court so there's no reason to think she wasn't being honest. As far as she knew those things would never been seen by anyone else. Her feeling that he would kill her was strong enough that she made a record of it.
weezer
10-14-2009, 01:35 PM
I agree and even Martin said she refused to tell lies about Simpson in court so there's no reason to think she wasn't being honest. As far as she knew those things would never been seen by anyone else. Her feeling that he would kill her was strong enough that she made a record of it.
I believe he scared her into not showing up that last day of court. I thought his statement "We met and settled." sounded very sinister.
LOL -- you mean you don't keep your kitchen knives in your bathroom? it's the fad that orenthal started but as far as I know, it never caught on -- he kept leaving his knives at other people's houses. :tongue:
I have to admit that all my knives are in the kitchen. Boring of me I know but old habits die hard. He tried to start several fads and it seems none of them caught on...collecting multiple alibis, losing bags, dripping blood...etc.
I believe he scared her into not showing up that last day of court. I thought his statement "We met and settled." sounded very sinister.
In light of what happened to Nicole -- very sinister.
martin II
10-14-2009, 01:37 PM
so -- he had an empty knife box sitting on the edge of the bathtub and another one hidden in the medicine cabinet. What's up with that? surely no one could consider that normal behavior.
on geraldo vannater and lang said mf should stop talking about the small knife box fornd in ojs bathroom.
"it had absolutely nothing to do with the case "
VANNATER/LANG.
you are so right! writing on this message board is like saying you're from timbucktoo -- no one knows where it is or even cares EXCEPT the people that live in timbucktoo and/or write on this board. No one who regulary posts on this board is a lawyer/judge -- we're all just people with an interest in the case and the 'who/what/where/when/why' of the case. :eek:
You mean there are no Supreme Court Justices visiting this board? Say it ain't so, weezer! :eek:
on geraldo vannater and lang said mf should stop talking about the small knife box fornd in ojs bathroom.
"it had absolutely nothoing to do with the case "
VANNATER/LANG.
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
martin II
10-14-2009, 01:42 PM
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
The knife the prosecution said was the murder weapon did not come from that box according to vanatter/lang.
martin II
10-14-2009, 01:44 PM
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
not true
i believe them when it is obvious that they are not being untruthful.
weezer
10-14-2009, 02:01 PM
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
LOL -- well, if I don't keep my knives hidden in my medicine cabinet, then I just leaving them laying around IN THEIR BOXES on the side of my bathtub. There is something seriously wrong with this picture!
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 02:06 PM
All those lawyers, such as Shapiro, who are known as settlement lawyers and, yeah, even those who reach settlements after settlement conferences in which the opposing parties meet to see, if they can settle out of court and spare the court the expense of a trial must have sinister motives or is it just Simpson?
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 02:08 PM
not true
i believe them when it is obvious that they are not being untruthful.
As far as it relates to where one leaves a knife, it may be as simple as a result of which part of the country the owner hailed or hails. I mean Simpson's socks allegedly looked out of place in his bedroom.
Its just me
10-14-2009, 03:09 PM
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
It might'a grew legs and climbed into the medicine cabinet....at some point in time. ;)
Did Ito have this knife sitting on his desk in a sealed envelope during the trial. Kind of a mystery thing. I may be dreaming but seems like I remember watching something I thought was kind of silly along those lines.
socaldiva
10-14-2009, 03:19 PM
It might'a grew legs and climbed into the medicine cabinet....at some point in time. ;)
Did Ito have this knife sitting on his desk in a sealed envelope during the trial. Kind of a mystery thing. I may be dreaming but seems like I remember watching something I thought was kind of silly along those lines.
IIRC, that was a different knife. One Orenthal purchased downtown when he was on the set of the Frogman movie.
martin II
10-14-2009, 03:49 PM
LOL -- well, if I don't keep my knives hidden in my medicine cabinet, then I just leaving them laying around IN THEIR BOXES on the side of my bathtub. There is something seriously wrong with this picture!
The murder knife did not come in that box.The other detectives realized that when they looked at it.Thats why they left it . mf was trying to make as if he made a great find.
We all know the 20 inch knife the Grand Master brought from ojs house was not the murder weapon either.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 03:56 PM
http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/time0003.html
martin II
10-14-2009, 04:26 PM
LOL -- well, if I don't keep my knives hidden in my medicine cabinet, then I just leaving them laying around IN THEIR BOXES on the side of my bathtub. There is something seriously wrong with this picture!
What does this have to do with a box found in ojs bathroom that was obviously not made to hold the murder knife.nothing.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 04:31 PM
"Daniel Petrocelli's Civil Trial Summation They found all of the basic evidence at Bundy when they surveyed the scene. They found the blood drops, they found the shoe prints
, of course the victim's bodies, blood on the back gate, which they saw and wrote in their notes, and they found one glove. And they found all this evidence and then they -- and the knit cap, too, by the way. They found all this evidence while Mark Fuhrman is sleeping. Fuhrman is sleeping when all the evidence in the case is found at Bundy.
Now, Mr. Baker told you earlier today, Mark Fuhrman found all the evidence in the case. That's just false. What trial has he been attending? Mark Fuhrman didn't find any of the evidence in this case except the glove at Rockingham. He found nothing at Bundy. Nothing.
Based on Daniel Petrocelli's assertion to the Criminal Trial Jury, it follows that -- from this point on -- nothing of incriminating value can be associated with the Bundy location. Therefore, those readers who subscribe to the validity of the civil case are invited to disregard all evidence not specifically contained in the report submitted by Officer Riske.
Petrocelli accurately imforms the jury of those things iobserved by the patrolmen who discovered the bodies.
However, his technique is called a "lawyer's lie".
"THE LAWYER's LIE" is a technique for misrepresenting facts, while stating them accurately. It is imployed by Attorneys during their jury presentations, and by "expert witnesses" called to advocate a position. Most recently, the FBI> has been called to task for "slanting" their testimony to favor the prosecution -- "slanting" is milder form of "lawyer's lie".
What Daniel Petrocelli wanted the jury to forget:
The patrolman were not charged with detecting evidence. Their job was to enter and secure a murder location. As part of that responsibility, they were obligated to note, and avoid disturbing, any evidence in their line of travel. Their function was to identify a line of travel which would be the least distructive to possible evidence. They DID NOT have the responsibility of noting ALL evidence. They certainly had no responsibility -- nor did they attempt to, seek out evidence which was not in the areas they traversed.
Daniel Petrocelli is asking the jury to apply the same logic which Clark applied -- if it wasn't seen, it wasn't there."
martin II
10-14-2009, 04:55 PM
http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/time0003.html
Great link.
William Anthony
10-14-2009, 05:23 PM
Great link.
Thanks and it calls into question all the statements and the logic about there weren't two gloves at Bundy.
weezer
10-15-2009, 09:37 AM
IIRC, that was a different knife. One Orenthal purchased downtown when he was on the set of the Frogman movie.
I think I'm starting to see a pattern here with orenthal's obvious obsession with knives! :eek:
The Boys
10-15-2009, 09:49 AM
on geraldo vannater and lang said mf should stop talking about the small knife box fornd in ojs bathroom.
"it had absolutely nothing to do with the case "
VANNATER/LANG.
I love it when you believe the two guys you always say are liars when it suits a theory of yours.
martin II
10-15-2009, 10:28 AM
I love it when you believe the two guys you always say are liars when it suits a theory of yours.
Your comment does not interest me.
martin II
10-15-2009, 10:30 AM
tv
This is for you.
During the civil depositions, Al Cowlings also mentioned this discovery. When these drops were noticed, the police had been using the front door -- as their sole means of access to the house -- for over an hour. At the moment of discovery, Vannatter was near the kitchen, talking to Cowlings. Fuhrman tells us that it was Roberts who first marked the blood trail -- and that Fung removed the cards and replaced them with ones marking every third or forth droplet. The blood trail is import to understand the case.
The one thing which all the officers agree upon:
The blood trail is linear. It leads directly from the Bronco into the house, and directly from the house to the Bronco. At no time does it go anywhere near the south pathway -- making it impossible for the pathway to have been part of the journey beginning at one point, and ending at the other. Therefore, the evidence and assertions of ALL the detectives and the criminologist concur, whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway.
Therefore, the Glove was Planted
From williams link above.
martin II
10-15-2009, 10:39 AM
"Daniel Petrocelli's Civil Trial Summation They found all of the basic evidence at Bundy when they surveyed the scene. They found the blood drops, they found the shoe prints
, of course the victim's bodies, blood on the back gate, which they saw and wrote in their notes, and they found one glove. And they found all this evidence and then they -- and the knit cap, too, by the way. They found all this evidence while Mark Fuhrman is sleeping. Fuhrman is sleeping when all the evidence in the case is found at Bundy.
Now, Mr. Baker told you earlier today, Mark Fuhrman found all the evidence in the case. That's just false. What trial has he been attending? Mark Fuhrman didn't find any of the evidence in this case except the glove at Rockingham. He found nothing at Bundy. Nothing.
Based on Daniel Petrocelli's assertion to the Criminal Trial Jury, it follows that -- from this point on -- nothing of incriminating value can be associated with the Bundy location. Therefore, those readers who subscribe to the validity of the civil case are invited to disregard all evidence not specifically contained in the report submitted by Officer Riske.
Petrocelli accurately imforms the jury of those things iobserved by the patrolmen who discovered the bodies.
However, his technique is called a "lawyer's lie".
"THE LAWYER's LIE" is a technique for misrepresenting facts, while stating them accurately. It is imployed by Attorneys during their jury presentations, and by "expert witnesses" called to advocate a position. Most recently, the FBI> has been called to task for "slanting" their testimony to favor the prosecution -- "slanting" is milder form of "lawyer's lie".
What Daniel Petrocelli wanted the jury to forget:
The patrolman were not charged with detecting evidence. Their job was to enter and secure a murder location. As part of that responsibility, they were obligated to note, and avoid disturbing, any evidence in their line of travel. Their function was to identify a line of travel which would be the least distructive to possible evidence. They DID NOT have the responsibility of noting ALL evidence. They certainly had no responsibility -- nor did they attempt to, seek out evidence which was not in the areas they traversed.
Daniel Petrocelli is asking the jury to apply the same logic which Clark applied -- if it wasn't seen, it wasn't there."
Petro did a lot of 'LAWYER LIE" that is for sure.
weezer
10-15-2009, 11:41 AM
I love it when you believe the two guys you always say are liars when it suits a theory of yours.
:beer::beer:
martin II
10-15-2009, 11:44 AM
I think I'm starting to see a pattern here with orenthal's obvious obsession with knives! :eek:
I think it goes like this.
The actress that was in the movie with oj and the person that told oj about the party at nicoles where prosecutes and addicts were present was the lady that told oj about the knife shop near the movie set and went there with him when he purchased it. He purchased it as a collerctors item.imo
That knife was found by the Grand Master packed away in ojs closet after oj told him where it was.
clarke claim that that was the murder weapon blew up in her fact with the autopsy report and the finding that the knife had never been used.imo
that knife had nothing to do with the case.
I think it goes like this.
The actress that was in the movie with oj and the person that told oj about the party at nicoles where prosecutes and addicts were present was the lady that told oj about the knife shop near the movie set and went there with him when he purchased it. He purchased it as a collerctors item.imo
That knife was found by the Grand Master packed away in ojs closet after oj told him where it was.
clarke claim that that was the murder weapon blew up in her fact with the autopsy report and the finding that the knife had never been used.imo
that knife had nothing to do with the case.
Where is the knife from the empty knife box on the side of the tub? Why was a knife in the medicine cabinet? What about when he talked about killing with a knife to a limo driver (IIRC)? What about the interview he had in England where he make jokes about stabbing? Imo, Simpson is obsessed with knives. Maybe Nicole knew about his fascination with knives and that's why she was afraid he'd kill her in that way. Just something to think about.
tv
This is for you.
During the civil depositions, Al Cowlings also mentioned this discovery. When these drops were noticed, the police had been using the front door -- as their sole means of access to the house -- for over an hour. At the moment of discovery, Vannatter was near the kitchen, talking to Cowlings. Fuhrman tells us that it was Roberts who first marked the blood trail -- and that Fung removed the cards and replaced them with ones marking every third or forth droplet. The blood trail is import to understand the case.
The one thing which all the officers agree upon:
The blood trail is linear. It leads directly from the Bronco into the house, and directly from the house to the Bronco. At no time does it go anywhere near the south pathway -- making it impossible for the pathway to have been part of the journey beginning at one point, and ending at the other. Therefore, the evidence and assertions of ALL the detectives and the criminologist concur, whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway.
Therefore, the Glove was Planted
From williams link above.
The blood being in a linear pattern only tells me that he bled where the blood was found. It has no bearing on whether or not he was behind Kato's room. Do you have a link to testimony of the detective's assertion that "whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway." ?
weezer
10-15-2009, 12:50 PM
Where is the knife from the empty knife box on the side of the tub? Why was a knife in the medicine cabinet? What about when he talked about killing with a knife to a limo driver (IIRC)? What about the interview he had in England where he make jokes about stabbing? Imo, Simpson is obsessed with knives. Maybe Nicole knew about his fascination with knives and that's why she was afraid he'd kill her in that way. Just something to think about.
LOL -- don't you keep your 'collector item' knives stashed in your bathroom medicine cabinet? ;)
LOL -- don't you keep your 'collector item' knives stashed in your bathroom medicine cabinet? ;)
No, but if that's the proper place for them maybe I should consider it. :D
weezer
10-15-2009, 01:34 PM
No, but if that's the proper place for them maybe I should consider it. :D
OR you can just keep it in the box on the side of your bathtub. oh, that's right. . . .the knife wasn't in the box was it? hmmmm
I have to laugh everytime this is brought up because the NG's made this big deal about unproven/unsubstantiated theories about drugs being brought to her house around the children BUT orenthal can do drugs, display naked pictures of girlfriends on bedside tables, and keep knives on the edge of his bathtub, in his medicine cabinets, and goodness knows where all else! ;)
The Boys
10-15-2009, 02:32 PM
Your comment does not interest me.
LOL, well you sure took the time out to reply!
The Boys
10-15-2009, 02:41 PM
So many of his friends who kept mum during the criminal trial ended up saying that they stood by him during that time because he kept telling him that he could explain everything and they wanted to believe him but then he couldn't explain anything and they faced the fact that they believed he killed her.
Its just me
10-15-2009, 03:26 PM
So many of his friends who kept mum during the criminal trial ended up saying that they stood by him during that time because he kept telling him that he could explain everything and they wanted to believe him but then he couldn't explain anything and they faced the fact that they believed he killed her.
And all his buds have gone on with their lives and OJ is now just a # sitting in jail. :eek: They probably don't even send him a "hello" card.
At one time OJ had a lot going for him....but he murdered 2 people and fell from grace. I guess it's an opinion but I sure do believe it.
William Anthony
10-15-2009, 03:29 PM
Here is the interesting thing about the so-called logical thought pattern of the prosecution and plaintiffs as espoused by those with speaking authority for them. If we are to believe that there weren't two gloves at Bundy, because no one saw evidence of two (save MF) and in accordance with the link I provided on the flaw in logical thinking, then the fact that no one saw blood behind Kato's quarters and neither Park nor Kato saw Simpson go to his Bronco after he exited his home, then the linear blood pattern must have been created before they saw him, which means that he entered his home through the front door from Rockingham and, therefore, couldn't have been behind Kato's quarters, since the majority belief on this forum is that Simpson was bleeding ad he returned to Rockingham after committing two brutal and bloody murders. If it does not fit, it is evidence that there was planting, IMHO.
weezer
10-15-2009, 04:01 PM
"Article: O.J. Simpson Removed From Suicide Watch
The Washington Post Article date:June 30, 1994
As prosecutors and defense lawyers in the O.J. Simpson case made last-minute preparations for a crucial pretrial hearing, the former football star was taken off a jail suicide watch.
Sheriff Sherman Block said the 46-year-old football Hall of Famer was taken off the suicide watch on the advice of his psychiatrist. . ."
"Sep 16, 2009
O.J. SIMPSON ON SUICIDE WATCH
“Severely depressed and despondent” O.J. Simpson landed back on suicide watch at Lovelock Correctional Center, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.
The disgraced football hero is serving nine to 33 years at the Nevada institution for his involvement in the gunpoint heist of his own memorabilia from a Las Vegas hotel room. But he just can’t stand doing prison time!
A distraught O.J. fell apart Sept. 4 after the Nevada Supreme Court denied his request to be freed pending a decision on his conviction appeal. . ."
William Anthony
10-15-2009, 04:09 PM
Is it better to end one's life or live it in futility and hatred and in which is the mind truly imprisoned? I say live each day to the best of one's ability with adherence to the Serenity prayer.
martin II
10-15-2009, 04:56 PM
The blood being in a linear pattern only tells me that he bled where the blood was found. It has no bearing on whether or not he was behind Kato's room. Do you have a link to testimony of the detective's assertion that "whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway." ?
previously i posted the detectives comments on 'NO ONE JUMPED THE FENCE'
and there was no evidence that anyone was in the south walkway.
If oj bled to the bronco and from the bronco to the front door and walked to the walkway then there is a problem with what time park saw him go into the house.
EXAMPLE
IF oj jumped the fence, what did he do, walk from the walkway out to the bronco and entered the rockingham gate and walked/bled up the driveway to his front door?? i don't think so.
martin II
10-15-2009, 04:58 PM
lol -- don't you keep your 'collector item' knives stashed in your bathroom medicine cabinet? ;)
if you use it in the bathroom why not.
martin II
10-15-2009, 05:00 PM
LOL, well you sure took the time out to reply!
I thought you should know.
martin II
10-15-2009, 05:30 PM
So many of his friends who kept mum during the criminal trial ended up saying that they stood by him during that time because he kept telling him that he could explain everything and they wanted to believe him but then he couldn't explain anything and they faced the fact that they believed he killed her.
Testimony is oj did not discuss the killings with his friends.
martin II
10-15-2009, 05:34 PM
OR you can just keep it in the box on the side of your bathtub. oh, that's right. . . .the knife wasn't in the box was it? hmmmm
I have to laugh everytime this is brought up because the NG's made this big deal about unproven/unsubstantiated theories about drugs being brought to her house around the children BUT orenthal can do drugs, display naked pictures of girlfriends on bedside tables, and keep knives on the edge of his bathtub, in his medicine cabinets, and goodness knows where all else! ;)
obviously vannater/lang realized the knife in the medicine cabinet was not the murder weapon so they left it where it was found.
martin II
10-15-2009, 05:41 PM
The blood being in a linear pattern only tells me that he bled where the blood was found. It has no bearing on whether or not he was behind Kato's room. Do you have a link to testimony of the detective's assertion that "whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway." ?
There was no evidence found on the salingers property or the salingers bushes trees that any one was present there. There were no broken bush branches or any other scrub disturbance that would have happened if anyone had climber the bushes to get to the top of the fence. there was no evidence that asnyone fell against any wall, fell to the ground and disturbed and ground leaves running out of the walkway.
Answer no one did any of it.
martin II
10-15-2009, 06:00 PM
The blood being in a linear pattern only tells me that he bled where the blood was found. It has no bearing on whether or not he was behind Kato's room. Do you have a link to testimony of the detective's assertion that "whoever left the blood trail could NOT have detoured, and therefore could NOT have left evidence on the south pathway." ?
tv
ps
The physical condition of the bushes and trees at the fence makes it impossible that someone could pushed through them and leave not one trace.
Was it petro that said "if you don't see it it was not there"
"Article: O.J. Simpson Removed From Suicide Watch
The Washington Post Article date:June 30, 1994
As prosecutors and defense lawyers in the O.J. Simpson case made last-minute preparations for a crucial pretrial hearing, the former football star was taken off a jail suicide watch.
Sheriff Sherman Block said the 46-year-old football Hall of Famer was taken off the suicide watch on the advice of his psychiatrist. . ."
"Sep 16, 2009
O.J. SIMPSON ON SUICIDE WATCH
“Severely depressed and despondent” O.J. Simpson landed back on suicide watch at Lovelock Correctional Center, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.
The disgraced football hero is serving nine to 33 years at the Nevada institution for his involvement in the gunpoint heist of his own memorabilia from a Las Vegas hotel room. But he just can’t stand doing prison time!
A distraught O.J. fell apart Sept. 4 after the Nevada Supreme Court denied his request to be freed pending a decision on his conviction appeal. . ."
Looks like the juice doesn't handle incarceration and a decline in his lifestyle very well. It could be worse; he could be like Ron and Nicole -- lying in a cold grave since June of 1994.
previously i posted the detectives comments on 'NO ONE JUMPED THE FENCE'
and there was no evidence that anyone was in the south walkway.
If oj bled to the bronco and from the bronco to the front door and walked to the walkway then there is a problem with what time park saw him go into the house.
EXAMPLE
IF oj jumped the fence, what did he do, walk from the walkway out to the bronco and entered the rockingham gate and walked/bled up the driveway to his front door?? i don't think so.
I've read all the detective's testimony and nowhere did I see that any of them said that no one jumped the fence. Someone was behind Kato's room and that's how the glove got there. The evidence points to that someone being OJ Simpson.
if you use it in the bathroom why not.
Why would you use a collector's knife and even if you did what purpose would you have for it in the bathroom? Just curious.
obviously vannater/lang realized the knife in the medicine cabinet was not the murder weapon so they left it where it was found.
No one here has said the knife in the medicine cabinet was the murder weapon.
There was no evidence found on the salingers property or the salingers bushes trees that any one was present there. There were no broken bush branches or any other scrub disturbance that would have happened if anyone had climber the bushes to get to the top of the fence. there was no evidence that asnyone fell against any wall, fell to the ground and disturbed and ground leaves running out of the walkway.
Answer no one did any of it.
There were positive presumptive tests for blood on the AC unit and a cable wire. After the trial, when OJ Simpson was giving a video tour of the pathway, he did a double take when he saw that the fence was bent exactly across from the spot where the glove was found. I don't know if he jumped the fence or not and I've said before it doesn't matter to me how he got back there. I simply disagree that's there's no evidence that he was there.
tv
ps
The physical condition of the bushes and trees at the fence makes it impossible that someone could pushed through them and leave not one trace.
Was it petro that said "if you don't see it it was not there"
I don't know. Did he? :shrug:
William Anthony
10-15-2009, 08:12 PM
March 13th,
"Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.
A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.
Q: AND YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE WALKWAY AREA. YOU INDICATED IT WAS KIND OF DIRTY WITH LEAVES. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY -- ANY FOOTPRINTS OR SHOEPRINTS OR DISTURBANCE IN THOSE LEAVES?
A: NO, I DIDN'T.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE, WAS IT VERY THICKLY COVERED WITH LEAVES? WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE?
A: WELL, MUCH AS THIS PICTURE DEPICTS IN THIS PHOTO, THAT WAS MUCH OF THE WAY THE WALKWAY LOOKED.
Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU LOOKED BACK, COULD YOU SEE WHERE YOU HAD JUST WALKED ON THE WALKWAY?
A: NO. "
There was no disturbance and MF claimed he went to investigate. So, how could anyone have walked back there without leaving some type of noticeable disturbance?
As far as the last question and answer it was objectionable and should have been stricken, although I believe the jury realized that it was just a fabrication and an objectionable one.
William Anthony
10-15-2009, 08:15 PM
"THE LAWYER's LIE" is a technique for misrepresenting facts, while stating them accurately. It is imployed by Attorneys during their jury presentations, and by "expert witnesses" called to advocate a position. Most recently, the FBI> has been called to task for "slanting" their testimony to favor the prosecution -- "slanting" is milder form of "lawyer's lie".
What Daniel Petrocelli wanted the jury to forget:
The patrolman were not charged with detecting evidence. Their job was to enter and secure a murder location. As part of that responsibility, they were obligated to note, and avoid disturbing, any evidence in their line of travel. Their function was to identify a line of travel which would be the least distructive to possible evidence. They DID NOT have the responsibility of noting ALL evidence. They certainly had no responsibility -- nor did they attempt to, seek out evidence which was not in the areas they traversed.
Daniel Petrocelli is asking the jury to apply the same logic which Clark applied -- if it wasn't seen, it wasn't there."
martin II
10-15-2009, 09:06 PM
There were positive presumptive tests for blood on the AC unit and a cable wire. After the trial, when OJ Simpson was giving a video tour of the pathway, he did a double take when he saw that the fence was bent exactly across from the spot where the glove was found. I don't know if he jumped the fence or not and I've said before it doesn't matter to me how he got back there. I simply disagree that's there's no evidence that he was there.
You thinking oj did a double take means that is what you think.I think the one small bent top of a wire means nothing. I could have been bent at installation or when the gardner used machines to trim the hedges long after the murders.
You already know presumption test does not mean it was blood. I am interested in your idea of ojs route to his house/ by the walkway from the bronco if you are going to offer a realistic idea of how and when he was in the walkway.imo
Some believe oj was at bundy because of some blood was found there.No blood or any other thing was found at the walkway you you believe he was there? If that is the case then you can say he was in the back yard by the pool.
martin II
10-15-2009, 09:09 PM
I don't know. Did he? :shrug:
yes
martinii
martin II
10-15-2009, 09:11 PM
Why would you use a collector's knife and even if you did what purpose would you have for it in the bathroom? Just curious.
i said it was a collectors knife not oj.if does not matter where the knife was found in ojs house it was not the murder knife.
martin II
10-15-2009, 09:14 PM
I've read all the detective's testimony and nowhere did I see that any of them said that no one jumped the fence. Someone was behind Kato's room and that's how the glove got there. The evidence points to that someone being OJ Simpson.
Wrong
no evidence was collected or presented in court that proves oj was in the walkway.Clarke could never prove how the glove got to the walkway.
Hipcheck
10-15-2009, 11:11 PM
Wrong
no evidence was collected or presented in court that proves oj was in the walkway.Clarke could never prove how the glove got to the walkway.
You're the one that's wrong. The glove is the evidence that O.J. was back there as it has his blood on it.
You're the one that's wrong. The glove is the evidence that O.J. was back there as it has his blood on it.
For some reason some people don't believe that the presence of Simpson's blood mixed with the blood of his victims is evidence. It's a smoking gun -- a lot more than you get in many murder investigations.
i said it was a collectors knife not oj.if does not matter where the knife was found in ojs house it was not the murder knife.
No one said it was the murder knife.
yes
martinii
Do you have a link to that quote by Petrocelli?
GreenIce
10-15-2009, 11:33 PM
"A: I have no clue about that. This is all news to me.
Q: She writes:
"Told O.J. I'd drop them off 1st thing in the morning [sic]. He said OK. Then 'You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this *****, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you f---ing c--t. You think you can do any f---ing thing you want, you've got it coming -- I've already talked to my lawyers about this, ***** - they'll get you for tax evasion ***** I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a f---ing dime left, *****, etc."' This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off.
You want to take a look at that?
MR. LEONARD: Is there a question?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, I'm going to ask him a couple questions about that.
MR. LEONARD: Was that part of a question, what you just --
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, it is.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead. Go ahead.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you ever heard -- well, first of all, were you aware of any argument between Nicole and O.J. on -- along the lines of what Nicole wrote in her notes?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, not like this. This doesn't even sound like he talks.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: My next question was: Have you ever heard your father use language like that --
A: No.
Q: -- towards Nicole?
A: The C word? No way. No. Not like that.
Q: You know of any reason why Nicole would make such things up?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't. No, I don't.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever hear your father curse at Nicole like other than the C word, call her a ***** and things like that?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: No.
Q: Never?
A: I've heard him cuss, but not call her names.
Q: You ever hear him call her a ***** to her face?
A: Not that I remember he ever called her a *****.
Q: Nicole ever tell you that she was afraid of O.J. Simpson?
A: No. "
William,
I am glad you posted that part of Jason's depo. The words that were written, in regards to the swearing, does not sound like the words that either Nicole or OJ would use. IMO, there is no evidence to support that Simpson used that type of language. However, that does not give him a free pass if he used any word combination to hurt Nicole nor does it excuse her either.
You can say a lot of mean and nasty things to people without having to use a cuss word or "blue language". IMO.
I have always had doubts about the diary. IIRC, Nicole's handwritting was never verified by an expert. I think it was her father. Yet, since there are several pieces of written communication, we don't know which one's he verified, if it was him.
Simpson's first wife did say in an interview, that OJ was a yeller, she said nothing about him using that type of language.
GreenIce
10-15-2009, 11:39 PM
You're the one that's wrong. The glove is the evidence that O.J. was back there as it has his blood on it.
Hipcheck,
No, you are wrong. There is no supporting evidence that Simpson was behind that wall that night. There is no supporting evidence that the thumps that Kato heard had anything to do with the murders.
There is supporting evidence that Simpson was not back there. There is no evidence supporting that Simpson dripped his own blood onto the glove. There is supporting evidence that Simpson's blood that was found on the glove may have been a transfer from the spilling of Simpson's blood.
IMO, I think even if you personally believed the glove was planted, regardless of who did it, even if Simpson's blood was transfered to the glove by complete accident, it would not change your mind about his guilt. I could be wrong and if I have this wrong, I mean no offense.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 12:08 AM
if oj owed the taxes some think he owed, the million $ he received from the book was a gift from god. He paid his taxes. He would have been a fool not to write the book just because some people he did not even know may not like the idea.These people didm't impact on his life. He had no reason to be concerned about what they thought.:cool:
Martin,
I am not sure I have this correct. Didn't the ghost writer write that chapter in the book? That OJ refused to have anything to do with that chapter. I know he read it but he made no comments on it.
Believe it or not, the more I read about Simpson and Fred Goldman, the more alike these men are on certain issues. Both men have publically stated that it is about the money.
I believe that even if the civil judgement was a 100 bucks, Simpson would not have paid it nor would have Goldman accepted it--maybe half of it but not all of it.
I completely agree that Simpson stopped long ago about what people thought of him. He knows he was not guilty of the crime and he was not going to live his life like that.
IMO, Simpson stopped caring about what people thought of him long ago. I knew that no matter what happened, he was never going to change any one's mind----and I would think that any person in the same situation, rich or poor, black or white, etc., would feel the exact same way if they were in a similar situation.
And Martin, remember, you and I have a different opinon of Goldman's motives. I truly believe had Ron been in the defendant's chair with the exact same evidence and was convicted, his father would be working just as hard to clear his son's name or if he was aquitted and media insisted he "walked", he would defend the jury verdict.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 12:10 AM
tv
ps
The physical condition of the bushes and trees at the fence makes it impossible that someone could pushed through them and leave not one trace.
Was it petro that said "if you don't see it it was not there"
Martin,
You know what I find odd, why was Fuhrman the only one who walked the other side of the fence and why did he wait so long to do so?
I don't remember any of the detectives or the cops testifying that they were on the otherside of the fence and I don't remember if Dennis Fung was on the other side of the fence either.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 12:51 AM
It's sad to me also. (very sad) Below is the first and last paragraphs of the 8 page hand written letter. IMHOO Nicole had something important to say to OJ...so she wrote the letter because she felt she could say it best in letter form. It doesn't take a Dear Ann to see what Nicole was saying to OJ and it's not my opinion but Nicole's own hand written words.
1st and last paragraph of Nicole's letter:
I think I have to put this all in a letter. Alot of years ago I used to do much better in a letter, I'm gonna try it again now.
I just believe that a relationship is based on trust -- and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. it's just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you're a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heatache -- I tried so hard with him -- I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance.
IJM,
In all honestly, what did Nicole expect? Yes, she did have the right to expect Simpson to be faithful to her, but then again so did Simpson's first wife. Nicole's age is not an excuse--she knew he was married.
Simpson's first wife gave an interview a long time ago, saying that he was pushed out of they way by several women to get to Simpson. I am sure Nicole was pushed as well, however, I think Nicole pushed back.
And to be fair to Simpson, he is no different then many men who cheat on their wives. We have a complete double standard on this issue and the only time the morals of that person is questioned is either when they are the President or the wife or ex is murdered.
For years Simpson's womanizing was well known--yet negative comments were made about this flaw--only after Nicole's death. If the comments weren't made before Nicole's death, then IMO, these people have no right to make them now.
I have posted many, many times that I believe cheating is another brutal form of domestic abuse that I don't ever heals. However, I feel that OJ's first wife did have the same expectations that Nicole had and she had no qualms about Simpson's martial status when she got involved with him.
I have also posted many times that I believe if Simpson was faithful to Nicole they would still be together to this day. IMO.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 01:04 AM
Nicole gave the braclet back May 22/23 and the draft of the IRS letter was May 26th...it was altered retyped on June 6th and sent to Nicole on June 8th. Another letter was written to Nicole dated June 8th with orders from OJ concerning Nicole and Gigi. That letter was never sent and IMHOO it was only because OJ killed Nicole first. ETA: OJ's rejection at the recital was the final straw.
Q: I am going to mark as Exhibit 51 a two-page document dated 5-26-94 from Taft to Simpson attaching a draft of a letter to Nicole; and as Exhibit 52, a signed letter from Mr. Simpson to Nicole dated June 6, 1994; and as Exhibit 53, an unsigned letter from Mr. Simpson to Nicole dated June 8, 1994.
Q: And the one that Taft sent you dated May 31 is one paragraph, whereas the final version is three paragraphs. Right?
ITJ,
There is no evidence supporting that Simpson was rejected after the dance recital. However, in the second search warrant, Mr. Brown said that he extended an invitation to Simpson to join them for dinner and Simpson declined. Ever wonder why Mr. Brown never took the stand?
For some reason, there appears to be an belief on this board that divorce or break ups bring out the best in people---they don't.
The IRS letter pissed Nicole off, however, she should have been pissed at her self for allowing herself to get into that position in the first place. She had to know that at least two or three months before the murders that things weren't working out, despite both of them trying and she should have been prepared for this.
There is no evidence to suggest that the break up was a one sided issue. There is no evidence to support that the break up was not mutal.
There is no evidence to support that Nicole believe OJ was trying to buy her, with regards to the braclet--simply because there is no evidence that Nicole was a person who could be bought. IMO.
Regards to the letter that Simpson wrote to Nicole regarding the maid and GiGi never should have happened because Nicole never should have treated Simpson's employee like her employee. He clearly described the situation and ordered it to be stopped. He had every reason to do so, especially after what happened with Michelle.
Simpson has said he took a back seat during the ghost writer’s crafting of the chapter. Fenjves says that’s a bold-faced lie.
"O.J. read the book, his book, several times. I made every change he asked for, and he signed off on it," Fenjves, a Hollywood screenwriter told Reuters on Thursday.
"The whole book, the whole idea for a book, originated with O.J. Simpson and a couple of his handlers," he said.
Fenjves said he spent weeks interviewing Simpson in person and by phone. He allowed Simpson to make revisions on all drafts, he said.
"And I told O.J., as I have told a dozen-plus other people I've ghost-written books for, 'Nobody sees this book until you're happy with it.' And that's exactly what happened," Fenjves added.
"I find it completely unnecessary to defend myself against this man," Fenjves said when pressed about Simpson's comments. "All I can say is if there are errors in the book, it's because O.J. didn't correct them, or worse, he fed them to me. But that's fine, too. It's his book. Self-delusion is a wonderful thing."
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur35629.cfm
IJM,
In all honestly, what did Nicole expect? Yes, she did have the right to expect Simpson to be faithful to her, but then again so did Simpson's first wife. Nicole's age is not an excuse--she knew he was married.
Simpson's first wife gave an interview a long time ago, saying that he was pushed out of they way by several women to get to Simpson. I am sure Nicole was pushed as well, however, I think Nicole pushed back.
And to be fair to Simpson, he is no different then many men who cheat on their wives. We have a complete double standard on this issue and the only time the morals of that person is questioned is either when they are the President or the wife or ex is murdered.
For years Simpson's womanizing was well known--yet negative comments were made about this flaw--only after Nicole's death. If the comments weren't made before Nicole's death, then IMO, these people have no right to make them now.
I have posted many, many times that I believe cheating is another brutal form of domestic abuse that I don't ever heals. However, I feel that OJ's first wife did have the same expectations that Nicole had and she had no qualms about Simpson's martial status when she got involved with him.
I have also posted many times that I believe if Simpson was faithful to Nicole they would still be together to this day. IMO.
I hope you don't really believe this.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 01:35 AM
The prosecution knew that Arnelle had lied about the door and they knew the laundry was hers -- they didn't figure out how the two connected and I don't know if they tried.
TV,
The DA's believed Arnelle-IMO. MC's questions to Arnelle both in the prelim hearing and in the criminal trial. Arnelle's credibility was critical to DA's case.
MC had to prove that the only reason why Simpson had to use the front door when coming back Bundy--she has to explain why Simpson was behind Kato's wall but entered the house through his front door.
Why wasn't Arnelle ever asked what the dark items were in the washer?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 01:40 AM
I hope you don't really believe this.
TV,
Yes, I do. I remember reading Bill Clinton's book and when he talked about his affairs while being married--he did it because he knew he could. I also remember how many people came out and supported him by saying that what he does with other women has nothing to do with him how he runs the country.
My point is that if cheating is wrong, then it is always wrong and should always matter. But it doesn't. Lets face it, scandal sells and many people make a ton of money off it. We knew that President Clinton had an affair before he took office, did we really think he was going to put Mr. Happy on ice until he got out of office?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Simpson has said he took a back seat during the ghost writer’s crafting of the chapter. Fenjves says that’s a bold-faced lie.
"O.J. read the book, his book, several times. I made every change he asked for, and he signed off on it," Fenjves, a Hollywood screenwriter told Reuters on Thursday.
"The whole book, the whole idea for a book, originated with O.J. Simpson and a couple of his handlers," he said.
Fenjves said he spent weeks interviewing Simpson in person and by phone. He allowed Simpson to make revisions on all drafts, he said.
"And I told O.J., as I have told a dozen-plus other people I've ghost-written books for, 'Nobody sees this book until you're happy with it.' And that's exactly what happened," Fenjves added.
"I find it completely unnecessary to defend myself against this man," Fenjves said when pressed about Simpson's comments. "All I can say is if there are errors in the book, it's because O.J. didn't correct them, or worse, he fed them to me. But that's fine, too. It's his book. Self-delusion is a wonderful thing."
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur35629.cfm
TV Dinner,
There is no way Simpson "fed" Fenjves.
Fenjves was a witness in the trial. He had access to all the court testimony plus the gazillion books written on the case. IMO, there was no way he could have been fed by Simpson.
Also, if Simpson did not committ the murders, then why would he make any corrections to that chapter? If he didn't kill them, why would he care what was written in that chapter?
TV,
The DA's believed Arnelle-IMO. MC's questions to Arnelle both in the prelim hearing and in the criminal trial. Arnelle's credibility was critical to DA's case.
MC had to prove that the only reason why Simpson had to use the front door when coming back Bundy--she has to explain why Simpson was behind Kato's wall but entered the house through his front door.
Why wasn't Arnelle ever asked what the dark items were in the washer?
I don't know for sure that she wasn't asked but how would I know the reason that they didn't? :shrug:
TV Dinner,
There is no way Simpson "fed" Fenjves. There is no way Fenjves would have even consulted Simpson on this chapter.
You can't possibly be calling yet another person a liar. Is there no end to the list of people that lie and Simpson is the only one telling the truth? Fenjves is an experienced, successful writer with a good reputation -- he had absolutely no reason to lie.
TV,
Yes, I do. I remember reading Bill Clinton's book and when he talked about his affairs while being married--he did it because he knew he could. I also remember how many people came out and supported him by saying that what he does with other women has nothing to do with him how he runs the country.
I still cannot believe that you actually think that the only time a person's morals are called into question due to infidelity is if their ex gets killed or they're the president. Good grief, that's just :punch:.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:03 AM
You can't possibly be calling yet another person a liar. Is there no end to the list of people that lie and Simpson is the only one telling the truth? Fenjves is an experienced, successful writer with a good reputation -- he had absolutely no reason to lie.
TV Dinner,
I am not calling him a liar. What I am saying that he a ton of material to use at research and that if there were any errors in that chapter, they were his errors, not Simpson's.
It appears to me that the writer is trying to blame Simpson for these errors and that makes no sense to me.
What I do find interesting is that the DA's and Plaintiff lawyers did not believe Simpson confessed in this book.
The critics against the book have never discussed the contents of the book. However, none of the DA's or the Plaintiffs' lawyers believe Simpson confessed in the book.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:06 AM
I still cannot believe that you actually think that the only time a person's morals are called into question due to infidelity is if their ex gets killed or they're the president. Good grief, that's just :punch:.
TV,
IMO, there are too many examples throughout history that do prove this out.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:13 AM
I don't know for sure that she wasn't asked but how would I know the reason that they didn't? :shrug:
TV,
If the DA's honestly believed those dark items were a man's sweat suit, then they would have pressed Arnelle on this. He would have called the detectives to the stand about this, Dennis Fung would have testified about this.
As you know, there have been reports that items were taken from the washing machine and tested for blood. Also, Darden's cross of the maid, IMO, supports this. He never asked the maid about the dark items in the washer, but he did ask her if she ever saw as sweat suit in his home and if she ever saw him wearing a sweat suit. She answered no to both questions.
TV,
If the DA's honestly believed those dark items were a man's sweat suit, then they would have pressed Arnelle on this. He would have called the detectives to the stand about this, Dennis Fung would have testified about this.
As you know, there have been reports that items were taken from the washing machine and tested for blood. Also, Darden's cross of the maid, IMO, supports this. He never asked the maid about the dark items in the washer, but he did ask her if she ever saw as sweat suit in his home and if she ever saw him wearing a sweat suit. She answered no to both questions.
Please provide a link to one shred of evidence, testimony or proof that items from the washer were tested for blood.
TV Dinner,
I am not calling him a liar. What I am saying that he a ton of material to use at research and that if there were any errors in that chapter, they were his errors, not Simpson's.
It appears to me that the writer is trying to blame Simpson for these errors and that makes no sense to me.
What I do find interesting is that the DA's and Plaintiff lawyers did not believe Simpson confessed in this book.
The critics against the book have never discussed the contents of the book. However, none of the DA's or the Plaintiffs' lawyers believe Simpson confessed in the book.
It makes perfect sense that the words are OJ Simpson's. A ghost writer's job is to put a person's story into a well-written, readable form. It wasn't his job to provide the story. Do you have a source to back up your claim that Fenjves did research for the book as opposed to getting Simpson's story from him? You are calling Fenjves a liar if you are saying he created the content of the book and not Simpson.
TV,
IMO, there are too many examples throughout history that do prove this out.
Let me get this straight one more time -- you believe that the only time morals are an issue with infidelity is if the ex is killed or the person committing the infidelity is the president? This proves that you and I not only don't live in the same world -- we don't share the same solar system. :eek:
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:29 AM
Please provide a link to one shred of evidence, testimony or proof that items from the washer were tested for blood.
TV,
There is not one shred of evidence that the dark items in the washer machine were in fact sweats. There is only person, MF who has said that the dark items were sweats. The second search warrant supports this.
There was no testimony by any state witness that these dark items were sweats nor was their any scientific evidence to suggest that the fibers found were in fact from a sweat suit.
The problem is, tons of evidence was taken from Simpson's home and they knew that dark clothes were worn. They may not have known the type of fibers, but they knew dark clothing was worn. For them not to take the contents of the washing machine and not test them makes no sense.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:40 AM
Let me get this straight one more time -- you believe that the only time morals are an issue with infidelity is if the ex is killed or the person committing the infidelity is the president? This proves that you and I not only don't live in the same world -- we don't share the same solar system. :eek:
TV,
What I am saying is that the same people who scorned Simpson's cheating on Nicole after she was murdered, were the very same people who knew for years and years that Simpson has cheated on his wife. In fact, he took more then one mistress to social events. Why was he only scorned for this after she was dead?
Isn't it fair to say that scandal and trials make a lot money? I think cheating is wrong regardess of who the person is--however, if I cheated on my spouse, it would not have been front page news. No money would have been made off of it.
Isn't also fair to say that the rich and famous, at times do appear to have their own set of laws? How many times have seen a picture of an underage star in a night club? How many times have you seen an underage star smashed?
How many times have these clubs been questioned or lose their liquor permits?
I just want to make this clear, I am referring to the media and the circle of friends. They rich and famous seem to have their own moral codes as well.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:48 AM
It makes perfect sense that the words are OJ Simpson's. A ghost writer's job is to put a person's story into a well-written, readable form. It wasn't his job to provide the story. Do you have a source to back up your claim that Fenjves did research for the book as opposed to getting Simpson's story from him? You are calling Fenjves a liar if you are saying he created the content of the book and not Simpson.
TV,
The writer is blaming Simpson for the errors in the book. I am saying that any errors in the book are his fault and not Simpson's. I don't know how any writer can write a book and not do research.
Well written and readable does not mean it is the truth. I have no problem with his theory on the murders. However, if his theory is not supported by the evidence in the case, then it is what it is--his theory based on his opinons, not the evidence in the case. IMO.
I have no reason not believe that Fenjves is lying about his own theory of the case. However, I do have a problem that he is blaming Simpson for the errors.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:55 AM
Please provide a link to one shred of evidence, testimony or proof that items from the washer were tested for blood.
TV,
Please remember, there can only be one source in regards to the testing of the dark items in the washer--and that is the LAPD. The leaks had to come from their camp about the clothes being taken from the washer and that they were tested for blood.
There is no way that the media could have made that story up.
Also, remember what MF said when he first got on the stand--about how much evidence was being ignored? What do you think he meant by that?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 03:04 AM
if you read his book you would know it was basically about their life togeather.
Martin,
I thought Simpson did not have anything to do with that chapter of the book? That it was totally left up to the ghost writer)
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 03:37 AM
The only time you believe them is when they say something against Mark Fuhrman. The knife box was found on the side of the tub and there was a picture of it in Mark Fuhrman's book. What happened to the knife?
TV,
IMO, it appears to me that MF and Lange and Vanatter were more interested at throwing each under the bus in regards to the case. MF blames them for losing the case and Lange and Vanatter blame MF for losing the case.
Both sides had axes to grind not only against each other but also against the DA's.
What I did find interesting in MF's book is that he wrote the defense had legimate reasons to question some of the evidence due to Lange and VA's incomptence as well as MC's refual to call Brad Roberts to the stand.
Also, it appears to me that MF has the upper hand regarding these issues.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 05:41 AM
If she thouight she didn't need the keys she would not have retreived them from her room. Thats what i think.
Martin,
The detectives had no reason to enter the main house. They knew Simpson was out of town and they knew the maid did not work weekends.
They could have just as easily asked Arnelle to use the phone in her room to Cathy Randa.
It is clear that Phillips, Vanatter and Lange are "team testifying" on this issue. The only one who isn't on the team is Mark Fuhrman.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 05:48 AM
Q: On Sunday—Referring again to Exhibit 86, Nicole's entry for Sunday, May 22,1994, this is the same day as you walked by the house when they were having that Sunshine picnic. Okay. This is later that evening. She writes, We've officially split. I told O.J. we're going back to every other weekend. I need the rest and O.J.'s gone so much he needs the alone time with them until he leaves again. Has been gone the last four weekends. So I've asked if we can start with him this weekend of May 28th. May 28 is Memorial Day weekend. Did you have any conversation with Nicole about what I just read to you?
This is from Nicole's diary.
Where is the evidence that Nicole dumped Simpson and that it was not a mutal break up?
If the break up was not mutal, surely Nicole would have wrote the details of it in her diary. IMO, of course.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 06:18 AM
You're the one that's wrong. The glove is the evidence that O.J. was back there as it has his blood on it.
There is only evidence of Simpson's blood being on a glove that was allegedly found by a detective, who had motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove and who admitted to planting/fabricating evidence in other cases, and blood missing from a vial of Simpson's blood and no evidence that anyone was in the location prior to the detective with the bad habits and the gloves did not fit.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 06:23 AM
William,
I am glad you posted that part of Jason's depo. The words that were written, in regards to the swearing, does not sound like the words that either Nicole or OJ would use. IMO, there is no evidence to support that Simpson used that type of language. However, that does not give him a free pass if he used any word combination to hurt Nicole nor does it excuse her either.
You can say a lot of mean and nasty things to people without having to use a cuss word or "blue language". IMO.
I have always had doubts about the diary. IIRC, Nicole's handwritting was never verified by an expert. I think it was her father. Yet, since there are several pieces of written communication, we don't know which one's he verified, if it was him.
Simpson's first wife did say in an interview, that OJ was a yeller, she said nothing about him using that type of language.
GreenIce,
even if he did use that language, the evidence is that he kept the use away from his child, which conflicts with the theory that he would have murdered the mother of his children and left her body there for the children to discover.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 06:27 AM
TV,
Yes, I do. I remember reading Bill Clinton's book and when he talked about his affairs while being married--he did it because he knew he could. I also remember how many people came out and supported him by saying that what he does with other women has nothing to do with him how he runs the country.
My point is that if cheating is wrong, then it is always wrong and should always matter. But it doesn't. Lets face it, scandal sells and many people make a ton of money off it. We knew that President Clinton had an affair before he took office, did we really think he was going to put Mr. Happy on ice until he got out of office?
GreenIce,
Just as a lack of morality had nothing to do with President Clinton's job performance, Simpson's alleged lack of morality had nothing to do with the murders.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 06:28 AM
I don't know for sure that she wasn't asked but how would I know the reason that they didn't? :shrug:
Who had the burden of proof?
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 06:29 AM
You can't possibly be calling yet another person a liar. Is there no end to the list of people that lie and Simpson is the only one telling the truth? Fenjves is an experienced, successful writer with a good reputation -- he had absolutely no reason to lie.
Money, fame and publicity.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 06:32 AM
GreenIce,
even if he did use that language, the evidence is that he kept the use away from his child, which conflicts with the theory that he would have murdered the mother of his children and left her body there for the children to discover.
William,
That is a good point, even as he was known to rant and rave, he was able to control his language. However, IMO, at that time, I seriously doubt the actual words that he used would have used matter because they probably didn't know what they meant. However, him yelling at their mother had to be very difficult for them as well.
There is no evidence to support that the children did hear and see their parents fight. I am sure this was address by the shrinks.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 06:39 AM
GreenIce,
Just as a lack of morality had nothing to do with President Clinton's job performance, Simpson's alleged lack of morality had nothing to do with the murders.
William,
I agree with you. The point I am trying to make is the two-faced journalism regarding this issue. If cheating on your spouse is an indication of your character, then this character flaw should be consistently addressed. In other words, all the people who said Simpson was a great guy even knowing he was cheating on both of his wives, to come back after Nicole's murder and express sympathy for Nicole because OJ cheated on her is just wrong. It is two faced, IMO.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 07:18 AM
Even Simpson: when they got to the murder chapter—in which Simpson talked about standing before Nicole and Ron holding a knife—Simpson balked at narrating the killings and said, "I don't give a s––t what you write. You can write I blacked out if you want to." So Fenjves inserted a bizarre fade-out. "Then something went horribly wrong … and I know what happened but can't tell you exactly how."
Clear this proves that Simpson had nothing to do with the contents of this chapter. The write was not "fed" any thing by Simpson and he refused to do the research that was available to him to support his theory.
IMO
martin II
10-16-2009, 07:28 AM
Martin,
I thought Simpson did not have anything to do with that chapter of the book? That it was totally left up to the ghost writer)
Thats true. he got $100,000 for making up that little tit bit
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 07:30 AM
Thats true. he got $100,000 for making up that little tit bit
Martin,
So you can understand why I take issue with the writer's comments that the errors in the book were not Simpson's fault, but his own.
Have you noticed that no one has taken any issues with the other chapters in the book?
And I believe Simpson was a lot more honest about his motives on the book then the publishers were. IMO.
martin II
10-16-2009, 07:38 AM
It makes perfect sense that the words are OJ Simpson's. A ghost writer's job is to put a person's story into a well-written, readable form. It wasn't his job to provide the story. Do you have a source to back up your claim that Fenjves did research for the book as opposed to getting Simpson's story from him? You are calling Fenjves a liar if you are saying he created the content of the book and not Simpson.
HE DID LIE
THE GHOST WRITER WROTE THE MURDER CHAPTER FOR $100,000 . OJ DID NOT HIRE HIM. THE GHOST WRITER WAS DICTATED TO OJ BY REGAN BOOKS AS SHE WAS HIS EX.he got the job because of that.
He also lied about the time he heard the dog bark because that is what he thought clarke wanted him to say.
He was just one of 10,000 free lance writers in la. nothing special about him.imo
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 07:42 AM
HE DID LIE
THE GHOST WRITER WROTE THE MURDER CHAPTER FOR $100,000 . OJ DID NOT HIRE HIM. THE GHOST WRITER WAS DICTATED TO OJ BY REGAN BOOKS AS SHE WAS HIS EX.
He also lied about the time he heard the dog bark because that is what he thought clarke wanted him to say.
Martin,
I just want to make sure I have this right. The Ghost Writer only wrote one chapter in that book? He has nothing to do with the other chapters?
Was there are ghost writer for the other chapters or were these Simpson's words?
martin II
10-16-2009, 07:56 AM
TV,
The writer is blaming Simpson for the errors in the book. I am saying that any errors in the book are his fault and not Simpson's. I don't know how any writer can write a book and not do research.
Well written and readable does not mean it is the truth. I have no problem with his theory on the murders. However, if his theory is not supported by the evidence in the case, then it is what it is--his theory based on his opinons, not the evidence in the case. IMO.
I have no reason not believe that Fenjves is lying about his own theory of the case. However, I do have a problem that he is blaming Simpson for the errors.
Fenjves wrote the murder chapter with no concern for the evidence in the case. it was written as a "hook" to appeal to the book buyers that thought they would read how the murders happened.
martin II
10-16-2009, 08:03 AM
Martin,
I just want to make sure I have this right. The Ghost Writer only wrote one chapter in that book? He has nothing to do with the other chapters?
Was there are ghost writer for the other chapters or were these Simpson's words?
The chapters on ojs life with nicole were ths same story he has told from his mouth. he did not need a ghost writer to talk about that. OJ DIDN'T EVEN WANT that GHOST WRITER TO GET THE JOB.Regan gave the job to him because of friendship. The ghost writer was paid by hc but somehow managed to get his name on the creditors list in the bankruptcy case.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 08:07 AM
Fenjves wrote the murder chapter with no concern for the evidence in the case. it was written as a "hook" to appeal to the book buyers that thought they would read how the murders happened.
Martin,
I have yet to read the book, however, I do remember even before it was published or releasted to the public, many of the lawyers involved in both cases, as in the DA's and Plaintiff's lawyers said that this was no confession.
That there was no way he would ever confess to the murders.
Also, I find it interesting that the writer was in fact a witness in the trial. It makes no sense to me that he would not have wrote it with the evidence that was known to the public.
Now, I believe there is evidence to support that there was at least two people at the crime scene, but I am leaning toward at least one more. I also have no problem with his theories on other issues---however, to ignore the evidence just makes no sense to me.
I would have thought Nicole's friends would have read at least the other chapters in the book and called him out on things if they felt were untrue.
Its just me
10-16-2009, 10:43 AM
IJM,
In all honestly, what did Nicole expect? Yes, she did have the right to expect Simpson to be faithful to her, but then again so did Simpson's first wife. Nicole's age is not an excuse--she knew he was married.
Simpson's first wife gave an interview a long time ago, saying that he was pushed out of they way by several women to get to Simpson. I am sure Nicole was pushed as well, however, I think Nicole pushed back.
And to be fair to Simpson, he is no different then many men who cheat on their wives. We have a complete double standard on this issue and the only time the morals of that person is questioned is either when they are the President or the wife or ex is murdered.
For years Simpson's womanizing was well known--yet negative comments were made about this flaw--only after Nicole's death. If the comments weren't made before Nicole's death, then IMO, these people have no right to make them now.
I have posted many, many times that I believe cheating is another brutal form of domestic abuse that I don't ever heals. However, I feel that OJ's first wife did have the same expectations that Nicole had and she had no qualms about Simpson's martial status when she got involved with him.
I have also posted many times that I believe if Simpson was faithful to Nicole they would still be together to this day. IMO.
For the record we live in a country of free speech....these people have just as much right as you or I do. Just because you or I don't like what someone say doesn't mean they don't have any rights. Soooo simple.
IMHOO and I believe many feel the same way.....what made Simpson become different is many believe he is guilty of murder and he was recognized my most households after the media started their fresco. The gossip grapevine full of extramarital affairs, sex outside of marriage etc has been happening for many years...and IMO it's the women who get the most heat in the gossip grapevine...The things related to OJ and Nicole became a very large grapevine.
Simpson and the President chose to become public figures.....there is a price one pays when they do that....many eyes are watching and gossiping when they step over the line of the morals most in this country use to value...sadly morals are disappearing as I type. Those eyes became focused on OJ Simpson when was arrested for a double murder...and the eyes became focused on the President when he was elected to lead our country. I'm not anyone's judge but there are some things that continue to be wrong....no matter if some in society accepts them now or not.
I have no idea what kind of life style Nicole would have had if OJ had been a faithful husband. The truth is he was not and the truth is Nicole also was not perfect but in my strong opinion nothing she did or did not do justified the abuse she received from the hands and mouth of OJ Simpson. Also the truth is both were guilty of causing problems in their marriage... I say this because I've yet to see one married saint. On the flip side I believe at times both wanted the marriage to work but from reading it appears they just never wanted it to work toward the end for very long and at the same time.
I believe it was Jason that said that Nicole could be a strong willed person...or something similar and I agree. As she got older I think she became stronger willed and wanted her own life...IMHOO its clear OJ and Nicole were in the biggest feuds of their life time at the time of the killings. Would it have blown over....probably....if OJ had not let his temper get the best of him on the night of June 12th and he had not made the mistake of cutting her throat. After the fact OJ did what most would do....started his defense. In my unchangeable opinion there is evidence that points in NO OTHER direction except OJ Simpson murdered two people who did not deserve to die. For me this is not about what OJ did in the past or what Nicole did in the past....it's what actually happened just prior to the killing and most of the things known points to a pure hail storm going on which ended with 2 people being murdered and IMHOO the evidence clearly shows they were killed by OJ Simpson. If the trial had been a normal trial with no cameras in the court room and without the new age of 24 hour around the world news coverage...the Simpson trial would have come and went like any other trial but instead every detail of the trial was presented to the whole world giving us the opportunity to form an opinion the same as if we were sitting on the jury. The simple truth is OJ was found not guilty by the real jury in the criminal trial and that was the one that counted for OJ....but OJ was found guilty by the majority of the public jury and imhoo they all had the same information made available by the cameras in the court room and the news media. No one can change the verdict of the real jury nor will the majority of public’s verdict of OJ being guilty ever be changed either. It is what it is. The civil trial was what it was…..and OJ sitting in jail today is what it is and none of our opinions will change anything.
IMHOO
TV,
The writer is blaming Simpson for the errors in the book. I am saying that any errors in the book are his fault and not Simpson's. I don't know how any writer can write a book and not do research.
Well written and readable does not mean it is the truth. I have no problem with his theory on the murders. However, if his theory is not supported by the evidence in the case, then it is what it is--his theory based on his opinons, not the evidence in the case. IMO.
I have no reason not believe that Fenjves is lying about his own theory of the case. However, I do have a problem that he is blaming Simpson for the errors.
The ghostwriter plainly states that IF there are any errors they are Simpson's not his -- that he was writing was Simpson told him to write. You don't have to believe him -- just add him to your list of liars. I choose to believe a man with nothing to gain by lying and who doesn't have a history of lying as Simpson does. Simpson approved the book which put Nicole in a terrible light and turned her death into a tawdry spectacle. That can't be changed no matter who you want to blame for it.
For the record we live in a country of free speech....these people have just as much right as you or I do. Just because you or I don't like what someone say doesn't mean they don't have any rights. Soooo simple.
IMHOO and I believe many feel the same way.....what made Simpson become different is many believe he is guilty of murder and he was recognized my most households after the media started their fresco. The gossip grapevine full of extramarital affairs, sex outside of marriage etc has been happening for many years...and IMO it's the women who get the most heat in the gossip grapevine...The things related to OJ and Nicole became a very large grapevine.
Simpson and the President chose to become public figures.....there is a price one pays when they do that....many eyes are watching and gossiping when they step over the line of the morals most in this country use to value...sadly morals are disappearing as I type. Those eyes became focused on OJ Simpson when was arrested for a double murder...and the eyes became focused on the President when he was elected to lead our country. I'm not anyone's judge but there are some things that continue to be wrong....no matter if some in society accepts them now or not.
I have no idea what kind of life style Nicole would have had if OJ had been a faithful husband. The truth is he was not and the truth is Nicole also was not perfect but in my strong opinion nothing she did or did not do justified the abuse she received from the hands and mouth of OJ Simpson. Also the truth is both were guilty of causing problems in their marriage... I say this because I've yet to see one married saint. On the flip side I believe at times both wanted the marriage to work but from reading it appears they just never wanted it to work toward the end for very long and at the same time.
I believe it was Jason that said that Nicole could be a strong willed person...or something similar and I agree. As she got older I think she became stronger willed and wanted her own life...IMHOO its clear OJ and Nicole were in the biggest feuds of their life time at the time of the killings. Would it have blown over....probably....if OJ had not let his temper get the best of him on the night of June 12th and he had not made the mistake of cutting her throat. After the fact OJ did what most would do....started his defense. In my unchangeable opinion there is evidence that points in NO OTHER direction except OJ Simpson murdered two people who did not deserve to die. For me this is not about what OJ did in the past or what Nicole did in the past....it's what actually happened just prior to the killing and most of the things known points to a pure hail storm going on which ended with 2 people being murdered and IMHOO the evidence clearly shows they were killed by OJ Simpson. If the trial had been a normal trial with no cameras in the court room and without the new age of 24 hour around the world news coverage...the Simpson trial would have come and went like any other trial but instead every detail of the trial was presented to the whole world giving us the opportunity to form an opinion the same as if we were sitting on the jury. The simple truth is OJ was found not guilty by the real jury in the criminal trial and that was the one that counted for OJ....but OJ was found guilty by the majority of the public jury and imhoo they all had the same information made available by the cameras in the court room and the news media. No one can change the verdict of the real jury nor will the majority of public’s verdict of OJ being guilty ever be changed either. It is what it is. The civil trial was what it was…..and OJ sitting in jail today is what it is and none of our opinions will change anything.
IMHOO
Great post! Thanks for posting this. :beer:
Martin,
I have yet to read the book, however, I do remember even before it was published or releasted to the public, many of the lawyers involved in both cases, as in the DA's and Plaintiff's lawyers said that this was no confession.
That there was no way he would ever confess to the murders.
Also, I find it interesting that the writer was in fact a witness in the trial. It makes no sense to me that he would not have wrote it with the evidence that was known to the public.
Now, I believe there is evidence to support that there was at least two people at the crime scene, but I am leaning toward at least one more. I also have no problem with his theories on other issues---however, to ignore the evidence just makes no sense to me.
I would have thought Nicole's friends would have read at least the other chapters in the book and called him out on things if they felt were untrue.
Do you have a source for the DAs and Plaintiff's lawyers saying it was no confession? You don't seem to understand that most people don't believe all the details of what he told the ghostwriter but many do believe it was a confession. For example, there was no Charlie.
The chapters on ojs life with nicole were ths same story he has told from his mouth. he did not need a ghost writer to talk about that. OJ DIDN'T EVEN WANT that GHOST WRITER TO GET THE JOB.Regan gave the job to him because of friendship. The ghost writer was paid by hc but somehow managed to get his name on the creditors list in the bankruptcy case.
You are wrong about Simpson needing a ghostwriter. He didn't have the necessary skills required to write a book.
Fenjves wrote the murder chapter with no concern for the evidence in the case. it was written as a "hook" to appeal to the book buyers that thought they would read how the murders happened.
He wrote what Simpson told him to write. Why else did they meet for weeks in person and on the phone? If the story had come from the ghostwriter that wouldn't have been necessary.
TV,
Please remember, there can only be one source in regards to the testing of the dark items in the washer--and that is the LAPD. The leaks had to come from their camp about the clothes being taken from the washer and that they were tested for blood.
There is no way that the media could have made that story up.
Also, remember what MF said when he first got on the stand--about how much evidence was being ignored? What do you think he meant by that?
Do you have a source for the sweats being removed from the washer and tested in the LAPD lab?
TV,
IMO, it appears to me that MF and Lange and Vanatter were more interested at throwing each under the bus in regards to the case. MF blames them for losing the case and Lange and Vanatter blame MF for losing the case.
Both sides had axes to grind not only against each other but also against the DA's.
What I did find interesting in MF's book is that he wrote the defense had legimate reasons to question some of the evidence due to Lange and VA's incomptence as well as MC's refual to call Brad Roberts to the stand.
Also, it appears to me that MF has the upper hand regarding these issues.
Even if any of this were true it doesn't make OJ Simpson innocent.
William,
That is a good point, even as he was known to rant and rave, he was able to control his language. However, IMO, at that time, I seriously doubt the actual words that he used would have used matter because they probably didn't know what they meant. However, him yelling at their mother had to be very difficult for them as well.
There is no evidence to support that the children did hear and see their parents fight. I am sure this was address by the shrinks.
Have you forgotten the 911 call where Nicole begs Simpson not to wake the children? He keeps ranting and raving while shouting profanities and obviously doesn't care if he wakes the children. I can't remember who said that Sydney was so used to their fights that she would just suck her thumb and go to sleep. That's very sad.
HE DID LIE
THE GHOST WRITER WROTE THE MURDER CHAPTER FOR $100,000 . OJ DID NOT HIRE HIM. THE GHOST WRITER WAS DICTATED TO OJ BY REGAN BOOKS AS SHE WAS HIS EX.he got the job because of that.
He also lied about the time he heard the dog bark because that is what he thought clarke wanted him to say.
He was just one of 10,000 free lance writers in la. nothing special about him.imo
He doesn't have a reputation for lying and making things up. OJ Simpson does.
Martin,
So you can understand why I take issue with the writer's comments that the errors in the book were not Simpson's fault, but his own.
Have you noticed that no one has taken any issues with the other chapters in the book?
And I believe Simpson was a lot more honest about his motives on the book then the publishers were. IMO.
Not true. The trashing of Nicole and ridicule of Ron has been written about in many artlcles and posted on this board several times.
Martin,
I just want to make sure I have this right. The Ghost Writer only wrote one chapter in that book? He has nothing to do with the other chapters?
Was there are ghost writer for the other chapters or were these Simpson's words?
The ghost writer wrote the entire book as told to him by OJ Simpson. He was the only ghostwriter. Do you actually believe that Simpson could have written the other chapters himself and you wouldn't have seen the difference between the writing styles? :eek:
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 12:56 PM
He wrote what Simpson told him to write. Why else did they meet for weeks in person and on the phone? If the story had come from the ghostwriter that wouldn't have been necessary.
You bet he wrote what Simpson told him.
The "NG's" have to believe that the ghost writer wrote that chapter otherwise they would have to admitt that Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.
It is unbeievable that Maritn, William and Greenice believe everyone is a liar except for their boy O.J. who is proven to be a liar.
martin II
10-16-2009, 01:58 PM
You bet he wrote what Simpson told him.
The "NG's" have to believe that the ghost writer wrote that chapter otherwise they would have to admitt that Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.
It is unbeievable that Maritn, William and Greenice believe everyone is a liar except for their boy O.J. who is proven to be a liar.
It is ny opinion that anyone that read the book understands that the murder chapter was totally impossible if they have even a small understanding of the testimony in the criminal trial. Those that didn't have very little to tell others about it. imo
martin II
10-16-2009, 02:00 PM
The ghost writer wrote the entire book as told to him by OJ Simpson. He was the only ghostwriter. Do you actually believe that Simpson could have written the other chapters himself and you wouldn't have seen the difference between the writing styles? :eek:
what i read in the book is what i have heard oj say many times. All he needed was a typewriter.
martin II
10-16-2009, 02:04 PM
Do you have a source for the sweats being removed from the washer and tested in the LAPD lab?
The LA TIMES article was posted here.That is the source.
socaldiva
10-16-2009, 02:26 PM
You are wrong about Simpson needing a ghostwriter. He didn't have the necessary skills required to write a book.
He sure didn't. For those claiming that the ghost writer wrote certain chapters, don't they understand that Orenthal had to sign off on the book before it was released? Do they think that he didn't know what was going to be published?
martin II
10-16-2009, 02:36 PM
You bet he wrote what Simpson told him.
The "NG's" have to believe that the ghost writer wrote that chapter otherwise they would have to admitt that Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.
It is unbeievable that Maritn, William and Greenice believe everyone is a liar except for their boy O.J. who is proven to be a liar.
Then you must believe that the murder chapter was a accurate description of what happened on 6/12.
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:38 PM
For the record we live in a country of free speech....these people have just as much right as you or I do. Just because you or I don't like what someone say doesn't mean they don't have any rights. Soooo simple.
IMHOO and I believe many feel the same way.....what made Simpson become different is many believe he is guilty of murder and he was recognized my most households after the media started their fresco. The gossip grapevine full of extramarital affairs, sex outside of marriage etc has been happening for many years...and IMO it's the women who get the most heat in the gossip grapevine...The things related to OJ and Nicole became a very large grapevine.
Simpson and the President chose to become public figures.....there is a price one pays when they do that....many eyes are watching and gossiping when they step over the line of the morals most in this country use to value...sadly morals are disappearing as I type. Those eyes became focused on OJ Simpson when was arrested for a double murder...and the eyes became focused on the President when he was elected to lead our country. I'm not anyone's judge but there are some things that continue to be wrong....no matter if some in society accepts them now or not.
I have no idea what kind of life style Nicole would have had if OJ had been a faithful husband. The truth is he was not and the truth is Nicole also was not perfect but in my strong opinion nothing she did or did not do justified the abuse she received from the hands and mouth of OJ Simpson. Also the truth is both were guilty of causing problems in their marriage... I say this because I've yet to see one married saint. On the flip side I believe at times both wanted the marriage to work but from reading it appears they just never wanted it to work toward the end for very long and at the same time.
I believe it was Jason that said that Nicole could be a strong willed person...or something similar and I agree. As she got older I think she became stronger willed and wanted her own life...IMHOO its clear OJ and Nicole were in the biggest feuds of their life time at the time of the killings. Would it have blown over....probably....if OJ had not let his temper get the best of him on the night of June 12th and he had not made the mistake of cutting her throat. After the fact OJ did what most would do....started his defense. In my unchangeable opinion there is evidence that points in NO OTHER direction except OJ Simpson murdered two people who did not deserve to die. For me this is not about what OJ did in the past or what Nicole did in the past....it's what actually happened just prior to the killing and most of the things known points to a pure hail storm going on which ended with 2 people being murdered and IMHOO the evidence clearly shows they were killed by OJ Simpson. If the trial had been a normal trial with no cameras in the court room and without the new age of 24 hour around the world news coverage...the Simpson trial would have come and went like any other trial but instead every detail of the trial was presented to the whole world giving us the opportunity to form an opinion the same as if we were sitting on the jury. The simple truth is OJ was found not guilty by the real jury in the criminal trial and that was the one that counted for OJ....but OJ was found guilty by the majority of the public jury and imhoo they all had the same information made available by the cameras in the court room and the news media. No one can change the verdict of the real jury nor will the majority of public’s verdict of OJ being guilty ever be changed either. It is what it is. The civil trial was what it was…..and OJ sitting in jail today is what it is and none of our opinions will change anything.
IMHOO
IJM,
Never did I or would I deny anyone rights regarding right to speak out. I was clear, IMO, that if they didn't say anything about this before the murders, then they should not say anything after the murders. Their motives for speaking out, IMO, should be questioned.
It really, really bothered me that at least one person, blamed Nicole's family for any and all the abuse that Simpson dished out. I think that was deplorable and that if Nicole was a such friend and could not turn to her family, why couldn't she turn to this friend to help her?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 02:49 PM
You bet he wrote what Simpson told him.
The "NG's" have to believe that the ghost writer wrote that chapter otherwise they would have to admitt that Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.
It is unbeievable that Maritn, William and Greenice believe everyone is a liar except for their boy O.J. who is proven to be a liar.
Hipcheck,
You are incorrect.
The point that NG's have made is that if there was any errors in that chapter, they were the author's and not Simpson's. Simpson could not "fed" the writer anything because there is way, way too much information on this case for him to have these errors.
The writer got caught and instead of manning up about the errors in his book, he blamed Simpson.
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:18 PM
He doesn't have a reputation for lying and making things up. OJ Simpson does.
HE lied about the time he said he heard the dog bark.
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Martin,
The detectives had no reason to enter the main house. They knew Simpson was out of town and they knew the maid did not work weekends.
They could have just as easily asked Arnelle to use the phone in her room to Cathy Randa.
It is clear that Phillips, Vanatter and Lange are "team testifying" on this issue. The only one who isn't on the team is Mark Fuhrman.
They had no legal reason to enter the house.
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 03:28 PM
They had no legal reason to enter the house.
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:29 PM
Martin,
I thought Simpson did not have anything to do with that chapter of the book? That it was totally left up to the ghost writer)
Ghost writers are good at making things up and that is what he was was hired for to make up the murder chapter.
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:31 PM
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
Then why did vannater tell the judge those lies to get the seasrch warrant.
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:33 PM
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
They knew oj and the maid and no one else was in the house so what was the reason??
martin II
10-16-2009, 03:39 PM
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
Then you must believe that the murder chapter was a accurate description of what happened on 6/12.
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 04:19 PM
Then why did vannater tell the judge those lies to get the seasrch warrant.
Vannater didn't lie to the judge to get the search warrant.
The ghost writers job is to write down what O.J. tells him. His job isn't to make stuff up and he didn't in O.J.'s book.
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 04:25 PM
Then you must believe that the murder chapter was a accurate description of what happened on 6/12.
I believe some of the murder chapter but of course not all of it.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 04:40 PM
They had no legal reason to enter the house.
You are technically quite correct, as they swore in the affidavit that they had exigent circumstances, which allowed them to enter without following the legally required mandates before invading one's privacy, and exigent circumstances merely circumvent but do not invalidate the legal requirements.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 04:46 PM
William,
I agree with you. The point I am trying to make is the two-faced journalism regarding this issue. If cheating on your spouse is an indication of your character, then this character flaw should be consistently addressed. In other words, all the people who said Simpson was a great guy even knowing he was cheating on both of his wives, to come back after Nicole's murder and express sympathy for Nicole because OJ cheated on her is just wrong. It is two faced, IMO.
ITA, on the issue of two-faced. I just cannot make the jump from cheating to murder, especially in light of the divorce.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 04:51 PM
For the record we live in a country of free speech....these people have just as much right as you or I do. Just because you or I don't like what someone say doesn't mean they don't have any rights. Soooo simple.
IMHOO and I believe many feel the same way.....what made Simpson become different is many believe he is guilty of murder and he was recognized my most households after the media started their fresco. The gossip grapevine full of extramarital affairs, sex outside of marriage etc has been happening for many years...and IMO it's the women who get the most heat in the gossip grapevine...The things related to OJ and Nicole became a very large grapevine.
Simpson and the President chose to become public figures.....there is a price one pays when they do that....many eyes are watching and gossiping when they step over the line of the morals most in this country use to value...sadly morals are disappearing as I type. Those eyes became focused on OJ Simpson when was arrested for a double murder...and the eyes became focused on the President when he was elected to lead our country. I'm not anyone's judge but there are some things that continue to be wrong....no matter if some in society accepts them now or not.
I have no idea what kind of life style Nicole would have had if OJ had been a faithful husband. The truth is he was not and the truth is Nicole also was not perfect but in my strong opinion nothing she did or did not do justified the abuse she received from the hands and mouth of OJ Simpson. Also the truth is both were guilty of causing problems in their marriage... I say this because I've yet to see one married saint. On the flip side I believe at times both wanted the marriage to work but from reading it appears they just never wanted it to work toward the end for very long and at the same time.
I believe it was Jason that said that Nicole could be a strong willed person...or something similar and I agree. As she got older I think she became stronger willed and wanted her own life...IMHOO its clear OJ and Nicole were in the biggest feuds of their life time at the time of the killings. Would it have blown over....probably....if OJ had not let his temper get the best of him on the night of June 12th and he had not made the mistake of cutting her throat. After the fact OJ did what most would do....started his defense. In my unchangeable opinion there is evidence that points in NO OTHER direction except OJ Simpson murdered two people who did not deserve to die. For me this is not about what OJ did in the past or what Nicole did in the past....it's what actually happened just prior to the killing and most of the things known points to a pure hail storm going on which ended with 2 people being murdered and IMHOO the evidence clearly shows they were killed by OJ Simpson. If the trial had been a normal trial with no cameras in the court room and without the new age of 24 hour around the world news coverage...the Simpson trial would have come and went like any other trial but instead every detail of the trial was presented to the whole world giving us the opportunity to form an opinion the same as if we were sitting on the jury. The simple truth is OJ was found not guilty by the real jury in the criminal trial and that was the one that counted for OJ....but OJ was found guilty by the majority of the public jury and imhoo they all had the same information made available by the cameras in the court room and the news media. No one can change the verdict of the real jury nor will the majority of public’s verdict of OJ being guilty ever be changed either. It is what it is. The civil trial was what it was…..and OJ sitting in jail today is what it is and none of our opinions will change anything.
IMHOO
I just wanted to add that Simpson has been found not guilty of double murder in a verdict rendered, after a trial, by a jury of his peers and, as such, will forever remain not guilty and that is what it is and our opinions will not change that.
martin II
10-16-2009, 05:19 PM
I believe some of the murder chapter but of course not all of it.
Well which part you exactly believe?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 05:19 PM
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
Hipcheck,
You are wrong. The detectives had no legal reason to enter the main house at time. In fact, I think it was Vanatter who made it a point to say that Arnelle invited them in.
To believe that the LAPD did not suspect OJ Simpson's in these murders, knowing where he was, what time he left and of at least 3 DV calls, is to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and every other character of fiction.
Not on NG has ever said the LAPD had no reason to suspect Simpson or that had they gone over to Rockingham around 2:00 a.m. would have been illegal.
The point is and the point always will be they lied on the search warrant and there was no justification for it, VA took a huge, huge hit for the home team but probably felt he had no other alternative then to lie to a judge regarding a search warrant.
Don't forget, they could have gotten a search warrant by telephone and why the hell was Vanatter calling MC regarding a search warrant and not the people on call to do this? VA shopped for a DA he knew he could play ball with. IMO.
martin II
10-16-2009, 05:31 PM
I just wanted to add that Simpson has been found not guilty of double murder in a verdict rendered, after a trial, by a jury of his peers and, as such, will forever remain not guilty and that is what it is and our opinions will not change that.
Thanks.
The american publc took their cue from the nedia so that means very little. They are often led to wrong opinions. They thought it was great for us to send our young boys to war in iraq because some crooks told them it was the right think to do.
People that talk about what the american public think are just dissapointent loosers that cannot accept that the only legal criminal trial concluded that the prosecution made certain charges and could not prove them. imo:cool:
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 05:39 PM
ITA, on the issue of two-faced. I just cannot make the jump from cheating to murder, especially in light of the divorce.
William,
I can't make the jump between cheating to murder either, however, it appears that our media has no problem doing this. However, to be fair to the media, they might be working off of their own "stats". I would think if you covered a lot of murder trials you come to the conclusion that most murders are rooted in money and in lust. For some bizarre reason, many choose murder over divorce.
martin II
10-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Vannater didn't lie to the judge to get the search warrant.
The ghost writers job is to write down what O.J. tells him. His job isn't to make stuff up and he didn't in O.J.'s book.
You have got to be kidding. obviously you have not read the testimony or itos comments on the issue.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 07:34 PM
Thanks.
The american publc took their cue from the nedia so that means very little. They are often led to wrong opinions. They thought it was great for us to send our young boys to war in iraq because some crooks told them it was the right think to do.
People that talk about what the american public think are just dissapointent loosers that cannot accept that the only legal criminal trial concluded that the prosecution made certain charges and could not prove them. imo:cool:
The odd thing to me is that the feeling is that Simpson being in prison for his conduct in Las Vegas is somehow retribution for the fact that he was acquitted of double murder. Personally, if I thought someone, who murdered my loved one, went to jail for allegedly robbing someone else and I was determined that the person should pay in justice and truth for my loved one's murder, I could not accept the fact of his prison term as in any way retribution for my loved one's murder.
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 07:41 PM
You have got to be kidding. obviously you have not read the testimony or itos comments on the issue.
No, I am not joking and the facts are that Detective Vannatter did not lie when obtaining the search warrant.
William Anthony
10-16-2009, 07:45 PM
William,
I can't make the jump between cheating to murder either, however, it appears that our media has no problem doing this. However, to be fair to the media, they might be working off of their own "stats". I would think if you covered a lot of murder trials you come to the conclusion that most murders are rooted in money and in lust. For some bizarre reason, many choose murder over divorce.
GreenIce,
We are in agreement and for those that choose murder over divorce the murder is usually done before the divorce is finalized. I might be wrong but many think that Simpson was so obsessed with Ms. NBS that he could not picture or live life without her. However, and, as I say I may be wrong, but I can't remember any statement by Simpson that if she left he would kill her. I think that is quite frequent in those cases where the murderer feels so insecure that he/she requires the involvement of another in their life to give it validation. As beautiful and charming as Ms. NBS was, I am hard pressed to believe that her beauty and charm exceeded the beauty and charm of Simpson's family and his accomplishments to him. Had I been in his shoes, I would think of all the adversity I had to overcome to reach the pinnacles I reached and no obstacle could make me throw all that away. I would think that divorce is just another obstacle I had to master.
martin II
10-16-2009, 07:52 PM
No, I am not joking and the facts are that Detective Vannatter did not lie when obtaining the search warrant.
I think that is a opinion not fact right?
GreenIce
10-16-2009, 11:26 PM
No, I am not joking and the facts are that Detective Vannatter did not lie when obtaining the search warrant.
Hipcheck,
The facts are that he did lie, however, the Judge even believing that he lied, still allowed the search warrant to stand. This is not uncommon. When a judge tosses a search warrant, he or she knows that it is the kiss of death for their career.
Do you really think the Judge believed them when they said that Simpson was not a suspect?
Hipcheck
10-16-2009, 11:56 PM
Hipcheck,
The facts are that he did lie, however, the Judge even believing that he lied, still allowed the search warrant to stand. This is not uncommon. When a judge tosses a search warrant, he or she knows that it is the kiss of death for their career.
Do you really think the Judge believed them when they said that Simpson was not a suspect?
You or anyone else have no proof that Detective Vannatter lied. Did he make assumptions which were proven to be wrong? YES Were they lies? NO Did he admitt that he was wrong with his assumptions? YES
Detective Vannatter said Simpson wasn't a suspect when they went to Rockingham and there is no proof that he was or that Vannatter lied.
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 12:05 AM
You or anyone else have no proof that Detective Vannatter lied. Did he make assumptions which were proven to be wrong? YES Were they lies? NO Did he admitt that he was wrong with his assumptions? YES
Detective Vannatter said Simpson wasn't a suspect when they went to Rockingham and there is no proof that he was or that Vannatter lied.
Hipcheck,
Vanatter lied on the search warrant. It is obvious that the 4 lead detectives were "team" testifying on certain issues. He also flat out lied about what two witnesses told him about Simpson's where abouts.
They needed to justify the entry onto the property and to get inside the main house. Their actions are not consistent with with their motives.
What does "reckless disregard" for the truth mean to you? I believe Judge Ito also used these same terms regards to Carl Douglas. How is it that Carl D. is a liar because Judge Ito called him with these terms, but the same does not apply to Vanatter.
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 12:28 AM
You or anyone else have no proof that Detective Vannatter lied. Did he make assumptions which were proven to be wrong? YES Were they lies? NO Did he admitt that he was wrong with his assumptions? YES
Detective Vannatter said Simpson wasn't a suspect when they went to Rockingham and there is no proof that he was or that Vannatter lied.
Hipcheck,
There was no reason for VA to assume anything. There was no reason for him not hear Arnelle's or Kato's direct responses to very important questions.
The only assumption that I think was fair, was to assume that the blood trail from the Bronco to the front door was that of a human being. I can't imagine any wounded animal leave a trail like that. Of course I could be wrong about this but I am sure I will get plenty of responses that disagree about the trail.
However, that being said, there are laws that must be followed on these issues. According to the law, VA put the search warrant at risk by making this assumption when he did not have to.
The jury did not trust Vanatter and it wasn't just the issue of the search warrant. His answers were not direct and he did more dancing then a musical on Broadway, IMO.
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 01:03 AM
I think that is a opinion not fact right?
Martin,
IMO, I think one of the most puzzling part of this case is that many lies were told by the LAPD and SID department that never had to be told.
I still believe when the 4 detectives denied that Simpson was a suspect was such a dent in their credibility, it made every thing else they testified to be questioned.
When VA said that Simpson was no more of a suspect then Robert Shapiro was one of the biggest insults to the jurors. IMO.
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 07:16 AM
Where is/was it determined for a fact that Vannatter did not lie in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant to search Simpson's premises?
what i read in the book is what i have heard oj say many times. All he needed was a typewriter.
If what you read in the book is what you have heard OJ Simpson say many times why are you saying the ghostwriter made it up? As for him needing a typewriter I'm not talking about handwriting. I'm talking about proper sentence structure and readability. If Simpson had the skills to be an writer he would have written himself and not needed a ghost writer.
He sure didn't. For those claiming that the ghost writer wrote certain chapters, don't they understand that Orenthal had to sign off on the book before it was released? Do they think that he didn't know what was going to be published?
Fenjves said Simpson read the book several times and was happy with the end result. Somewhere there is a piece of paper with Simpson's signature on it that says just that. If Fenjves did Simpson so wrong why didn't he sue him? The ghost writer had no reason to lie.
Ghost writers are good at making things up and that is what he was was hired for to make up the murder chapter.
No, he wasn't.
Well which part you exactly believe?
I believe the part where he admits he killed them. The details he included don't matter because no one is going to write a book with a chapter like that unless they're guilty.
martin II
10-17-2009, 09:56 AM
If what you read in the book is what you have heard OJ Simpson say many times why are you saying the ghostwriter made it up? As for him needing a typewriter I'm not talking about handwriting. I'm talking about proper sentence structure and readability. If Simpson had the skills to be an writer he would have written himself and not needed a ghost writer.
Stop twisting
ghost writer created the murdrer chapter
Regan books foirced the writer on oj.he did not select or hire him.
martin II
10-17-2009, 10:00 AM
I believe the part where he admits he killed them. The details he included don't matter because no one is going to write a book with a chapter like that unless they're guilty.
did you read that in ojs book. i think not.
Stop twisting
ghost writer created the murdrer chapter
Regan books foirced the writer on oj.he did not select or hire him.
The ghost writer DID NOT create the murder chapter. He had no reason to do that when OJ Simpson was sitting there telling him what he wanted him to write. Do you have a source for your claim that the ghost writer was 'forced' on OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson is a grown man -- he could have said NO. He signed off his approval of the book so YOU are the one that is twisting.
did you read that in ojs book. i think not.
Now you're saying the murder chapter wasn't about OJ Simpson being the murder? For pete's sake, martin. :rolleyes:
Its just me
10-17-2009, 11:35 AM
The ghost writer DID NOT create the murder chapter. He had no reason to do that when OJ Simpson was sitting there telling him what he wanted him to write. Do you have a source for your claim that the ghost writer was 'forced' on OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson is a grown man -- he could have said NO. He signed off his approval of the book so YOU are the one that is twisting.
I agree, the ghost writer wrote what they were told by OJ Simpson. He also told Fox News. I'm thinking the interview with Fox was cancled. Not sure. ETA: The interview with Fox was already taped so it was not going to be live. FWIW.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," FOX said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."
The interview will air days before Simpson's new book
martin II
10-17-2009, 01:05 PM
Now you're saying the murder chapter wasn't about OJ Simpson being the murder? For pete's sake, martin. :rolleyes:
Here is my statement.
Regan books hired her ex to be the ghost writer and was paid by them. oj had no say so in his hiring. HC paid the ghost writer when oj was paid.
i think oj would have hired another writer considering he already knew Fujenvis had lied about when he heard the dog bark to support calarks failed timeline.
oj wrote about his life with nicole in all the other chapters but the murder chapter.He did not need a writer to tell him that story.
The ghost writer wrote the murder chapter and oj told him he did not care what he put in it. The murder chapter was so far from the facts known to everyone that realistic people know that chapter did not equal reality in any way.
The ghost writer purposly wrote nonsense into that chapter because oj did not confess to any murder and the ghost writer knew he had to include a HOOK in the book for gullible readers that would call any nonsense written about the muders as a confession. screw the known facts.
Reading that chapter it is comical that anyone would think that or anything close to that is what COULD HAPPEN.
Now i am thinking, what differance does it matter who wrote the book.oj Gave HC his manuscript of what he wrote. The ghost writer gave Regan his work.
Oj made over $1,000,000, Fred about $24,000 which he had to split with his daughter. imo
martin II
10-17-2009, 01:15 PM
The ghost writer DID NOT create the murder chapter. He had no reason to do that when OJ Simpson was sitting there telling him what he wanted him to write. Do you have a source for your claim that the ghost writer was 'forced' on OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson is a grown man -- he could have said NO. He signed off his approval of the book so YOU are the one that is twisting.
WroNg
The HC contract names oj as the creator of the manuscript and the ghost writer by name and his pay level.Fujvenes was a ex of REGAN books president and she selected him based of friendship.oj had no say in his hiring.
Read the contract.
Hipcheck
10-17-2009, 01:18 PM
Here is my statement.
Regan books hired her ex to be the ghost writer and was paid by them. oj had no say so in his hiring. HC paid the ghost writer when oj was paid.
i think oj would have hired another writer considering he already knew Fujenvis had lied about when he heard the dog bark to support calarks failed timeline.
oj wrote about his life with nicole in all the other chapters but the murder chapter.He did not need a writer to tell him that story.
The ghost writer wrote the murder chapter and oj told him he did not care what he put in it. The murder chapter was so far from the facts known to everyone that realistic people know that chapter did not equal reality in any way.
The ghost writer purposly wrote nonsense into that chapter because oj did not confess to any murder and the ghost writer knew he had to include a HOOK in the book for gullible readers that would call any nonsense written about the muders as a confession. screw the known facts.
Reading that chapter it is comical that anyone would think that or anything close to that is what COULD HAPPEN.
Now i am thinking, what differance does it matter who wrote the book.oj Gave HC his manuscript of what he wrote. The ghost writer gave Regan his work.
Oj made over $1,000,000, Fred about $24,000 which he had to split with his daughter. imo
O.J. Simpson does an interview with Fox News and talks about the murders of Nicole and Ron from the chapter in his book.
You want us to believe that when O.J. talks about this from his book he's telling Fox News what the ghost writer wrote and that he had no say on what was written.
That's the biggest bunch of bullcrap that I've heard in a long time but not surprised that a "NG's" would post that.
martin II
10-17-2009, 01:33 PM
The ghost writer DID NOT create the murder chapter. He had no reason to do that when OJ Simpson was sitting there telling him what he wanted him to write. Do you have a source for your claim that the ghost writer was 'forced' on OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson is a grown man -- he could have said NO. He signed off his approval of the book so YOU are the one that is twisting.
tv
HC CONTRACT
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH E.
States, "The publisher shall have the right to appoint the writer. Pablo fujventes is the writer"
Oj had no say in who the writer would be.
martin II
10-17-2009, 01:35 PM
O.J. Simpson does an interview with Fox News and talks about the murders of Nicole and Ron from the chapter in his book.
You want us to believe that when O.J. talks about this from his book he's telling Fox News what the ghost writer wrote and that he had no say on what was written.
That's the biggest bunch of bullcrap that I've heard in a long time but not surprised that a "NG's" would post that.
What part of the murder chapter do you believe.
Hipcheck
10-17-2009, 01:39 PM
Pablo Fenjves tells Fox News the truth about O.J. Simpson's book.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Watch Martin accuse Mr. Fenjves of lying.
martin II
10-17-2009, 01:48 PM
O.J. Simpson does an interview with Fox News and talks about the murders of Nicole and Ron from the chapter in his book.
You want us to believe that when O.J. talks about this from his book he's telling Fox News what the ghost writer wrote and that he had no say on what was written.
That's the biggest bunch of bullcrap that I've heard in a long time but not surprised that a "NG's" would post that.
hahaha
thats comical.
martin II
10-17-2009, 02:34 PM
Pablo Fenjves tells Fox News the truth about O.J. Simpson's book.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Watch Martin accuse Mr. Fenjves of lying.
More comedy from fujventis and of all people FOX.hahaha
Its just me
10-17-2009, 02:52 PM
Pablo Fenjves tells Fox News the truth about O.J. Simpson's book.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Watch Martin accuse Mr. Fenjves of lying.
Well we all know everyone is a liar except OJ Simpson. :rolleyes: Who showed up in a photo wearing those ugly a** shoes he claimed he wouldn't wear.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Simpson did ask for one detail to be removed, however. He originally told Fenjves that Nicole’s Akita, named Kato for their perennial houseguest Kato Kaelin, had wagged its tail when O.J. saw it greet Goldman moments before the murder.
It was a telling detail, Fenjves thought, that Simpson had noticed the dog was familiar with Goldman. No one had ever heard anything like that before. Simpson must have realized that, too.
The ex-football superstar wasn’t stupid, though. He told Fenjves after the manuscript was completed that he’d made some mistakes on purpose in the telling of the murders.
“I treated it as fiction,” he said. “I purposefully didn’t correct some of the mistakes, because if the time comes that I have to defend myself, I can say, ‘Hey look, it can’t be me because that couldn’t have happened.’”
martin II
10-17-2009, 03:09 PM
Pablo Fenjves tells Fox News the truth about O.J. Simpson's book.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Watch Martin accuse Mr. Fenjves of lying.
You said you agree with some of the murder chapter.i asked you what part do you agree with. You have not responded.
martin II
10-17-2009, 03:24 PM
I think that those that believe oj killed someone are the only people that would believe that after being found not guilty would be foolish enough to write a book confessing to have killed Nicole and Ron.
Oj stated that he was surprised that HC would pay him so much money for his life with Nicole and a fake murder chapter.
Only those that believe oj was guilty of murdering someone would believe what was in the murder chapter had anything to do with reality as none of it
is backed by what is known of how someone killed both Nicole and Ron.
Ojs position was he did not care what Fujventis put in that chapter as he knew none of it was true. Fujeventis sp position was he was hired to create.
He and oj never got along as Fujevenes was forced on oj as the ghost writter.
Fujventis understood that public opinion would be against oj for the book so he just jumped on the band wagon and blamed oj for what he had written, took his pay and moved on. imo
Hipcheck
10-17-2009, 04:25 PM
I think that those that believe oj killed someone are the only people that would believe that after being found not guilty would be foolish enough to write a book confessing to have killed Nicole and Ron.
Oj stated that he was surprised that HC would pay him so much money for his life with Nicole and a fake murder chapter.
Only those that believe oj was guilty of murdering someone would believe what was in the murder chapter had anything to do with reality as none of it
is backed by what is known of how someone killed both Nicole and Ron.
Ojs position was he did not care what Fujventis put in that chapter as he knew none of it was true. Fujeventis sp position was he was hired to create.
He and oj never got along as Fujevenes was forced on oj as the ghost writter.
Fujventis understood that public opinion would be against oj for the book so he just jumped on the band wagon and blamed oj for what he had written, took his pay and moved on. imo
Most of the polulation of the United States believes O.J. Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron.
Blaming Fenjves for writing and making up the detais of the murders is just plain stupid.
Mr. Fenjves has never been proven to be a liar while O.J. Simpson has been proven to be a pathological liar.
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 04:34 PM
Most of the population of the united states of America have invented details of the murder or chosen to believe the details supplied by others, who were not part of any authorized investigation into the murders nor a part of the collection, processing, storage and handling of the so-called evidence and, IMHO, most of America has chosen to deny that the so-called evidence was untrustworthy in order to support their conclusion that Simpson was the murderer, despite the fact that Simpson was found not guilty of the murders.
martin II
10-17-2009, 04:51 PM
Most of the polulation of the United States believes O.J. Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron.
Blaming Fenjves for writing and making up the detais of the murders is just plain stupid.
Mr. Fenjves has never been proven to be a liar while O.J. Simpson has been proven to be a pathological liar.
what part of the book do you believe.
martin II
10-17-2009, 04:57 PM
Most of the polulation of the United States believes O.J. Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron.
Blaming Fenjves for writing and making up the detais of the murders is just plain stupid.
Mr. Fenjves has never been proven to be a liar while O.J. Simpson has been proven to be a pathological liar.
4 witnesses proved he lied in the criminal trial but you would not know that right?
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 05:00 PM
what part of the book do you believe.
I can only speak for myself but I will say the part that I believe is the "if".
weezer
10-17-2009, 05:02 PM
Most of the polulation of the United States believes O.J. Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron.
Blaming Fenjves for writing and making up the detais of the murders is just plain stupid.
Mr. Fenjves has never been proven to be a liar while O.J. Simpson has been proven to be a pathological liar.
don't you understand that everything wrong in orenthal's life is someone else's fault? all the way back to his youth when he was a street thug and gang member. :rolleyes:
weezer
10-17-2009, 05:11 PM
Well we all know everyone is a liar except OJ Simpson. :rolleyes: Who showed up in a photo wearing those ugly a** shoes he claimed he wouldn't wear.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html
Simpson did ask for one detail to be removed, however. He originally told Fenjves that Nicole’s Akita, named Kato for their perennial houseguest Kato Kaelin, had wagged its tail when O.J. saw it greet Goldman moments before the murder.
It was a telling detail, Fenjves thought, that Simpson had noticed the dog was familiar with Goldman. No one had ever heard anything like that before. Simpson must have realized that, too.
The ex-football superstar wasn’t stupid, though. He told Fenjves after the manuscript was completed that he’d made some mistakes on purpose in the telling of the murders.
“I treated it as fiction,” he said. “I purposefully didn’t correct some of the mistakes, because if the time comes that I have to defend myself, I can say, ‘Hey look, it can’t be me because that couldn’t have happened.’”
the statement that he 'wasn't stupid' is more than a little debatable. . .I'm just saying. :eek:
martin II
10-17-2009, 05:16 PM
the statement that he 'wasn't stupid' is more than a little debatable. . .I'm just saying. :eek:
Well he was not stupid enough to walkaway from over $1,000,000 because he knew some would find all kinds of reason as to why he should not take the money HC asked him to take for his manuscript of his life with Nicole.Smart move on his part. i think most would do the same.As a matter of fact many took the money and wrote nothing of real interest about the case.Fred made a
a unsuccessful attempt to sell the book about his sons death for money. imo
martin II
10-17-2009, 05:23 PM
I can only speak for myself but I will say the part that I believe is the "if".
Thanks william
Ditto "IF" you believe anything in the murder chapter see Fenjevis, he wrote it not me. oj simpson imo
martin II
10-17-2009, 05:26 PM
Most of the population of the united states of America have invented details of the murder or chosen to believe the details supplied by others, who were not part of any authorized investigation into the murders nor a part of the collection, processing, storage and handling of the so-called evidence and, IMHO, most of America has chosen to deny that the so-called evidence was untrustworthy in order to support their conclusion that Simpson was the murderer, despite the fact that Simpson was found not guilty of the murders.
For some it does not matter what the legal jury decided after hearing all the testimony. The only thing that is important is what they believe happened after ignoring the testimnony that proved that the jury was correct in their decision.imo
tv
HC CONTRACT
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH E.
States, "The publisher shall have the right to appoint the writer. Pablo fujventes is the writer"
Oj had no say in who the writer would be.
That doesn't mean the writer was forced on him or that he had an issue with you the writer was.
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 05:42 PM
People react differently to a system that perpetuates institutionalized inequality on the basis of certain immutable characteristics.
Does anyone posting or reading here have a link to the claim that Fenjves was forced on OJ Simpson as the ghost writer and that they didn't get along? Not that it really matters -- OJ Simpson signed off on the book which means he approved the content.
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 05:45 PM
Of course people have the right to believe what they desire to believe based on no evidence whatsoever but the fact is that Simpson was charged and the charges were not proven, which is the only thing in regard to the murders that was proven.
William Anthony
10-17-2009, 05:49 PM
I think the link about the ghost writer being forced on Simpson and the two not getting along is right above the link showing there were pigeon-toed shoe prints found a Bundy and directly below the one showing the record of the phone call Simpson made to Ms. Arnelle at approximately 4:30 on the AM of June 13th and adjacent to the link to the recording showing he asked Ms. Arnelle to was the bloody sweatsuit.
martin II
10-17-2009, 05:53 PM
That doesn't mean the writer was forced on him or that he had an issue with you the writer was.
You know what it means.It means what it says.
It means that HC decided who the writer would be not oj. Hc dictated who the writer would be. oj could not say no.You know this.
martin II
10-17-2009, 05:58 PM
Does anyone posting or reading here have a link to the claim that Fenjves was forced on OJ Simpson as the ghost writer and that they didn't get along? Not that it really matters -- OJ Simpson signed off on the book which means he approved the content.
oJ has said he did not care what the writer put in the murder chapter.I could not cut and past the HC contract but i gave you the wording in the contract. if you don't believe what i posted from the contract ok. have it your way.
martin II
10-17-2009, 06:07 PM
Does anyone posting or reading here have a link to the claim that Fenjves was forced on OJ Simpson as the ghost writer and that they didn't get along? Not that it really matters -- OJ Simpson signed off on the book which means he approved the content.
do you not believe this post????
Originally Posted by martin II
tv
HC CONTRACT
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH E.
States, "The publisher shall have the right to appoint the writer. Pablo fujventes is the writer"
Oj had no say in who the writer would be.
weezer
10-17-2009, 06:50 PM
can you believe poor, ole orenthal's bad luck? my goodness, yet another conspiracy to make him look bad. :rolleyes:
martin II
10-17-2009, 07:29 PM
can you believe poor, ole orenthal's bad luck? my goodness, yet another conspiracy to make him look bad. :rolleyes:
JUST a little untruth by the writer to deny what he did by writing the murder chapter. most know he did.
socaldiva
10-17-2009, 07:38 PM
Does anyone posting or reading here have a link to the claim that Fenjves was forced on OJ Simpson as the ghost writer and that they didn't get along? Not that it really matters -- OJ Simpson signed off on the book which means he approved the content.
I've never heard or read any such thing. Why would a publisher "force" a ghost writer on their client? You're right, bottom line is that Simpson agreed to the project & signed off on the contents. Are some here proposing that he didn't read the contents of his own book? No offense intended, but do we even know if Simpson read books? I've read that he isn't very intelligent. :shrug:
weezer
10-17-2009, 07:41 PM
I started with the night of the murders and have been working backwards to see if there was something in the testimony/statements that would clarify when things began to change for Nicole and orenthal's reconciliation attempt.
1992 - January
Nicole files for divorce (2 years from beating date)
Sometime after filing for divorce and before April 1993, according to faye’s testimony, Nicole dates
1. alessandro - Relationship was broken off because “. . . O.J. had threatened him, called him at Christophe's and threatened that he would beat him up if he didn't stop seeing his wife.”
2. Keith – relationship was ‘physical friendship’ that didn’t continue “. . . O.J. had entered her home uninvited on one occasion and tried to intimidate Keith and on another occasion that he had told Nicole and Keith that he was watching them through the window of her house while they were having a romantic interlude. . . He said he would basically stalk them and made sure that Keith was very aware that he was watching them at all times and that he would follow them and made it so uncomfortable for them that Keith felt nervous.”
3. Brett – no knowledge that relationship was broken off because of orenthal
4. Grant – “he was aware of the abuse and Grant felt he wanted no part of the situation, that it was intimidating for him.”
5. Marcus allen – “O.J. - Nicole had told me that due to the reconciliation, she was not going to see anyone else. Nicole's relationship with Marcus was right before the reconciliation and it was a relationship that had to be hidden because it was so volatile. They, yes, indeed, went out publicly, but rarely. It was a relationship that was secretive, due to the friendship between Marcus and O.J. She cared for Marcus very much, very much. Marcus was engaged and she felt that due to the relationship, there could be no future in it for the both of them.”
6. Joseph - “ Joseph told her the reason he was not dating Nicole was “He said he felt that it was better, that O.J. was too much in love with Nicole and had not let go of her yet.”
July – Nicole and faye become friends Faye testifies conversation between her and Nicole regarding Nicole wanting to continue a relationship with ‘Joseph’.
Q. What did Joseph say?
A. That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
Its just me
10-17-2009, 07:43 PM
the statement that he 'wasn't stupid' is more than a little debatable. . .I'm just saying. :eek:
I hear you!! :)
weezer
10-17-2009, 07:43 PM
I've never heard or read any such thing. Why would a publisher "force" a ghost writer on their client? You're right, bottom line is that Simpson agreed to the project & signed off on the contents. Are some here proposing that he didn't read the contents of his own book? No offense intended, but do we even know if Simpson read books? I've read that he isn't very intelligent. :shrug:
LOL -- he may have had trouble reading the big words but only the orenthal apologists believe he didn't tell the writer what he wanted in the book -- including the murder chapter. ;)
socaldiva
10-17-2009, 07:47 PM
LOL -- he may have had trouble reading the big words but only the orenthal apologists believe he didn't tell the writer what he wanted in the book -- including the murder chapter. ;)
Orenthal likes to be in control of everything in his life, & I'm sure that would include a book he was putting out. He knew exactly what he wanted to say, but he may have back stepped when he figured out he miscalculated. jmo
weezer
10-17-2009, 07:58 PM
Orenthal likes to be in control of everything in his life, & I'm sure that would include a book he was putting out. He knew exactly what he wanted to say, but he may have back stepped when he figured out he miscalculated. jmo
he sure didn't mind distancing himself from the idea of the book did he? ;)
weezer
10-17-2009, 08:30 PM
found this in faye's civil testimony/deposition:
"A. Yes, it was. He used code names when he called my house.
Q. He did?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Because [Name Deleted] and Sydney were good friends. He did not want [Name Deleted] saying to Sydney, oh, your daddy is calling so much, your daddy called 10 times or your daddy called five times. So he used to say his name was Charles or James when he would call. . ."
Charles????? hmmmm. . .:eek:
weezer
10-17-2009, 09:19 PM
looks like Park isn't the only person who sought their mother's advice ;):
orenthal's civil trial testimony:
A. ". . .I began to get somewhat confused. . .So I flew to San Francisco, to talk to my mother. . ."
A. ". . .My mother. I had to get some advice from her. . . .So I—so I sort of took my mother's advice and I came back to Los Angeles. I called Nicole and I said, "We need to get away from everybody for two or three days, 'cause I need to talk to you and I need to find out what's going on." And we did."
martin II
10-17-2009, 09:23 PM
I've never heard or read any such thing. Why would a publisher "force" a ghost writer on their client? You're right, bottom line is that Simpson agreed to the project & signed off on the contents. Are some here proposing that he didn't read the contents of his own book? No offense intended, but do we even know if Simpson read books? I've read that he isn't very intelligent. :shrug:
I posted the paragraph from the contract that proves your idea wrong. But you can read the contract, see for your self and be informed.imo
HC hired the writer as was their right.
martin II
10-17-2009, 09:31 PM
found this in faye's civil testimony/deposition:
"A. Yes, it was. He used code names when he called my house.
Q. He did?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Because [Name Deleted] and Sydney were good friends. He did not want [Name Deleted] saying to Sydney, oh, your daddy is calling so much, your daddy called 10 times or your daddy called five times. So he used to say his name was Charles or James when he would call. . ."
Charles????? hmmmm. . .:eek:
Another faye tall story.
Nicole thought it was faye calling oj not the other way around. When faye called him to beg for a invite to a affair Nicole accused oj of stealing her friend.imo
martin II
10-17-2009, 09:46 PM
I started with the night of the murders and have been working backwards to see if there was something in the testimony/statements that would clarify when things began to change for Nicole and orenthal's reconciliation attempt.
1992 - January
Nicole files for divorce (2 years from beating date)
Sometime after filing for divorce and before April 1993, according to faye’s testimony, Nicole dates
1. alessandro - Relationship was broken off because “. . . O.J. had threatened him, called him at Christophe's and threatened that he would beat him up if he didn't stop seeing his wife.”
2. Keith – relationship was ‘physical friendship’ that didn’t continue “. . . O.J. had entered her home uninvited on one occasion and tried to intimidate Keith and on another occasion that he had told Nicole and Keith that he was watching them through the window of her house while they were having a romantic interlude. . . He said he would basically stalk them and made sure that Keith was very aware that he was watching them at all times and that he would follow them and made it so uncomfortable for them that Keith felt nervous.”
3. Brett – no knowledge that relationship was broken off because of orenthal
4. Grant – “he was aware of the abuse and Grant felt he wanted no part of the situation, that it was intimidating for him.”
5. Marcus allen – “O.J. - Nicole had told me that due to the reconciliation, she was not going to see anyone else. Nicole's relationship with Marcus was right before the reconciliation and it was a relationship that had to be hidden because it was so volatile. They, yes, indeed, went out publicly, but rarely. It was a relationship that was secretive, due to the friendship between Marcus and O.J. She cared for Marcus very much, very much. Marcus was engaged and she felt that due to the relationship, there could be no future in it for the both of them.”
6. Joseph - “ Joseph told her the reason he was not dating Nicole was “He said he felt that it was better, that O.J. was too much in love with Nicole and had not let go of her yet.”
July – Nicole and faye become friends Faye testifies conversation between her and Nicole regarding Nicole wanting to continue a relationship with ‘Joseph’.
Q. What did Joseph say?
A. That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
Some have said Nicole did not cheat on oj when they were married."He was the only one cheating" The alessandro affair proves that wrong.They both cheated on each other.imo
weezer
10-17-2009, 09:46 PM
1992
January 6TH – Nicole tells orenthal she wanted to separate
January/February
1.Nicole moves out of rockingham
2.files for divorce (2 years from the beating date)
April – orenthal stalking/peeping tom (keith) after seeing Nicole out with her friends at a restaurant earlier
July – Nicole and faye become friends
Faye testifies conversation between her and Nicole regarding Nicole wanting to continue a relationship with ‘Joseph’ and not understanding why he had pushed away.
Q. What did Joseph say?
A. That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
October – orenthal/Nicole divorce is finalized
November- Thanksgiving – orenthal testifies: “So the plan was for her to come back to New York on Christmas—I mean on Thanksgiving, because I have to work on Thanksgiving, the Thanksgiving Day game. I have to arrange with NBC not to be at the game, which I would normally be, but to be in the studio. But a few days before Thanksgiving, she called me to tell me she wasn't coming back and wasn't bringing the kids back.”
December - Christmas – orenthal testifies: "Well, right after Thanksgiving, I called my lawyer and I told him what had happened and I said, well, I guess we're going to have to start rotating holidays. I want my kids for Christmas. And he started some litigation with their lawyer and—and we solved it almost immediately, that the kids would come back to New York for Christmas as long as a responsible adult would bring them, and my oldest daughter brought—we agreed would bring my kids back to spend Christmas with me.
Q. Okay. Now—and they did come back, didn't they?
A. They came back I believe on Monday or Tuesday and—
Q. And then what happened after the kids got back; did you get a call from Nicole?
A. Yeah. That Christmas, I—the day before Christmas, I—Nicole called, and she was very emotional and she said she couldn't believe that she wasn't going to be with the kids on Christmas. And even though it was sort of a problem with me, 'cause I had a girlfriend back in New York. I knew she was going to go visit her mother, I said, well, you can come back and as a matter of fact, I'll pay your ticket. And I got her a first class ticket. I told her she just couldn't stay in my apartment with me. And she came back, stayed a block away at a hotel and, you know, every morning would come over, and we did everything, you know, we went to all the Christmas shows and the Big Apple Circus and ice skating, and we really had a fabulous three days together.”
weezer
10-17-2009, 09:52 PM
I thought the testimony on the subject of 'Joseph' and Nicole interesting and telling:
faye's testimony: “. . .Joseph told her the reason he was not dating Nicole was “He said he felt that it was better, that O.J. was too much in love with Nicole and had not let go of her yet. . .That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
orenthal's testimony: “. . . I think on one instance we had two sort of altercations or arguments. One was—I think I inadvertently said something to a guy about her new boyfriend and I thought she had told the guy and evidently she didn't and she came to my son's kickball game and was upset with me that I had mentioned something to him. She had found a guy and she had come to me for advice about the guy, a guy named Joseph. And I assumed she had told this other guy, Keith, who she always said wasn't her boyfriend, just he was a friend, and I had inadvertently—when I was picking my son up and they drove up, I sort of gave him my condolences, Keith, and I didn't realize that she hadn't told him yet. So she came to the kickball game and was pretty upset with me about that. . .”
weezer
10-17-2009, 10:05 PM
1993
January –
Orenthal testifies regarding avoiding contact with Nicole: “So I gave— I told her— I told my housekeeper, Michelle, and I told Kathy Randa that, you know, if Nicole called, that if it's about the kids, let me know immediately. If—ask her—if it's not about the kids, I don't want to hear about it."
”I saw her very briefly, her and her mother, when I was—the day after the Super Bowl, February 1. I had picked my kids up from school, and they were going to spend a few days with me, and when I went by the house to get their clothes, her and her mother were out front, and her father—mother came over and gave me a hug and Nicole came over and felt—started—attempted to start an altercation. And I just wouldn't hear it. I just got in my car and I waited for my kids ,and outside of that two or three minutes, I—I don't think I spoke to her at all during—from Christmas till mid-March.
Q. Now, when you use the word altercation, you mean an oral argument?
A.Yes.”
March – orenthal testifies
“Q. Now, in March of 1993, did the relationship between you and Nicole change somewhat?
A. I don't know, I guess maybe somewhat, but not really with—what happened was that at some point—she called me in mid-March, and—and I had answered the phone, and it was, as I said, the first time I had spoken to her, really, in—essentially in a—in two or three months, and she said she really needed to talk to me and felt that I was upset with her, and I told her I wasn't, and she asked why wouldn't I return her phone calls, 'cause I had been getting through Michelle and—through Nicole, I mean sometimes up to five calls a day, and she was sending me cookies on occasion and musical tapes with love songs on them. And I—you know, she thought I was mad at her. I told her I wasn't, I just didn't want to have any hassles. And she needed to talk to me. And somehow—someone else called, so the conversation ended. About two hours later, she showed up at my house with my kids and a couple of tapes and a letter.
Q. And, O.J., is this the—the letter that she showed up with in mid-March?
A. Yes.”
April - Nicole and orenthal began dating again
Faye testifies regarding conversations between herself and Nicole: “The discussions were, I felt, incomplete discussions. She had left out very important information to me at that time regarding the abusive nature of their relationship. She - we were in therapy together, group therapy together, and right before Nicole went, asked O.J. to reconcile, and she had said that all of the problems that they had had, she didn't really want to discuss because they were now in a new phase: O.J. had turned a new leaf in his life, O.J. had said he was going to be monogamous, O.J. had said that he was not going to do drugs, O.J. had said he was going to change his behavior, and she believed him so she didn't really discuss all of, anything that was really happening before.”
Orenthal testifies: "Well, some things that happened—I became aware of some things that had happened with her and some people that I knew. She was—I don't know. She was the girl that I had always known for 15 years. She was making a big effort, because she was taking golf lessons. Her—and then all her girlfriends would show up taking golf lessons. And I always—always enjoyed the times that he we spent with the kids. I began to get somewhat confused. I—began to be a little friction with my girlfriends and I, that Nicole would be — a few times when Paula was coming over, Nicole was at the house, and I didn't even know she was there. So I flew to San Francisco, to talk to my mother.
Q. Why did you fly to San Francisco to talk to your mother?
A. My mother. I had to get some advice from her. And essentially what she told me was, you know, for the kids' sake, maybe you should at least understand why she wants to get back together, and— and understand what your feelings were. Because I did have and always have had feelings for Nicole. So I—so I sort of took my mother's advice and I came back to Los Angeles. I called Nicole and I said, "We need to get away from everybody for two or three days, 'cause I need to talk to you and I need to find out what's going on." And we did.”
May – orenthal accuses marcus allen of affair with Nicole. allen denies affair
martin II
10-17-2009, 10:14 PM
I started with the night of the murders and have been working backwards to see if there was something in the testimony/statements that would clarify when things began to change for Nicole and orenthal's reconciliation attempt.
1992 - January
Nicole files for divorce (2 years from beating date)
Sometime after filing for divorce and before April 1993, according to faye’s testimony, Nicole dates
1. alessandro - Relationship was broken off because “. . . O.J. had threatened him, called him at Christophe's and threatened that he would beat him up if he didn't stop seeing his wife.”
2. Keith – relationship was ‘physical friendship’ that didn’t continue “. . . O.J. had entered her home uninvited on one occasion and tried to intimidate Keith and on another occasion that he had told Nicole and Keith that he was watching them through the window of her house while they were having a romantic interlude. . . He said he would basically stalk them and made sure that Keith was very aware that he was watching them at all times and that he would follow them and made it so uncomfortable for them that Keith felt nervous.”
3. Brett – no knowledge that relationship was broken off because of orenthal
4. Grant – “he was aware of the abuse and Grant felt he wanted no part of the situation, that it was intimidating for him.”
5. Marcus allen – “O.J. - Nicole had told me that due to the reconciliation, she was not going to see anyone else. Nicole's relationship with Marcus was right before the reconciliation and it was a relationship that had to be hidden because it was so volatile. They, yes, indeed, went out publicly, but rarely. It was a relationship that was secretive, due to the friendship between Marcus and O.J. She cared for Marcus very much, very much. Marcus was engaged and she felt that due to the relationship, there could be no future in it for the both of them.”
6. Joseph - “ Joseph told her the reason he was not dating Nicole was “He said he felt that it was better, that O.J. was too much in love with Nicole and had not let go of her yet.”
July – Nicole and faye become friends Faye testifies conversation between her and Nicole regarding Nicole wanting to continue a relationship with ‘Joseph’.
Q. What did Joseph say?
A. That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
The relationship with Marcus allen was rekindeled shortly before Nicole was killed according to Coras testimony. i am not sure how secret the relationship was as nicole and Marcus went out to dinner with Kato.imo
weezer
10-17-2009, 10:16 PM
1994
Before April Cabo trip (exact dates unknown)
Reichardt testifies: orenthal indicated he (orenthal) was thinking about seeking some professional assistance
Reichardt testifies:10 days before trip he has dinner with orenthal, Nicole, and faye where pills were taken away from faye.
March 31st thru April 7th: orenthal and Nicole trip to Cabo – orenthal leaves cabo on 3rd for Puerto Rico; Reichardt leaves on 4th
kato testifies cora tells him it was this trip where Nicole made the decision to end the relationship with orenthal
reichardt testifies orenthal expected to be in Puerto Rico week-and-a-half.
April 8th
reichardt testifies orenthal and faye were ‘probably talking once or twice a week, lengthy, right in the times after Cabo where orenthal was trying to find out from faye what was going on with Nicole. . . .after animated phone call between faye and orenthal, faye stated that "He is going to kill her if she keeps doing this driving him crazy."
April 30th – Nicole and orenthal attend Reichardt birthday party together
May 6th thru ? – Reichardt testifies:beginning a couple of days after the party he has several conversations over several days with orenthal about problems orenthal having with Nicole
May 19th - Nicole's birthday; orenthal gives Nicole expensive jewelry and a very expensive lighter.
May 22nd
Nicole gives bracelet back to orenthal but keeps the lighter
Nicole's entry for Sunday, May 22,1994”. . . We've officially split. I told O.J. we're going back to every other weekend. . . Has been gone the last four weekends.”
May 26th - Draft of the IRS letter by orenthal
May 27th thru 30th - faye and reichardt vacation in Cabo; still living together; faye ends engagement
May 28th – date orenthal was to start every other weekend visitation with the kids
May 31st thru June 11th - faye staying with Nicole and other friends
June 3rd – Nicole’s entry. . . "O.J. came to pick up kids at 8:30 p.m. They wanted to stay home because I let them organize sleepovers at last minute, thought daddy wasn't coming. Told O.J. I would drop them off first thing in the morning."
June 6th - IRS draft letter altered retyped by Taft
June 8th
reichardt writes “Get call from paul resnick to meet at Petit Four Restaurant 8:00. Nicole showed up late. Told me about freebase since just before Cabo trip Easter. I decided to not go and do intervention. Called friends to meet at 11:00 home. Called cousins house. She said Faye went home with Francesca. Met her at home. Argument. 11:00 intervention."
altered/retyped IRS letter sent to Nicole
date of the never sent letter with orders from orenthal to Nicole concerning Nicole & Gigi
June 9th – reichardt writes “"Nicole called how I was. Discussed Francesca. Nic didn't want to talk about it.”
June 11th – reichardt writes “6-11 visited Faye family session."
June 12th – Ron and Nicole are murdered
Reichardt writes “visited Faye p.m. arrow home. Nic called to see how I was about 5:30. O.J. called about 9:00. “
June 13th – reichardt writes “10:00 Paul Resnick called about Nic killed. We talked if Faye was safe. If it was a drug thing. Both felt it was possible. Discussed if we should have her go to his ranch in Idaho. But only people knew where she was, so she was safe. Called Albert at Exodus. Asked him how to handle it. They were going to talk to her and to stay available. Went to see her that night. Slept with gun by my side. She stayed two weeks inpatient then came out. Coexisted only she had no place to go.”
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 10:19 PM
The relationship with Marcus allen was rekindeled shortly before Nicole was killed according to Coras testimony. i am not sure how secret the relationship was as nicole and Marcus went out to dinner with Kato.imo
Martin,
Who testified to the stalkings? Where was all this evidence? Faye also said that Nicole saw Marcus that night or was going to. I wonder how she knew that?
weezer
10-17-2009, 10:24 PM
Q. Did you apologize to Mr. Simpson in this conversation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and leading.
A: Yes. I said, "I am sorry. Nothing happened.
Q: (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you apologize to Mr. Simpson for having had an affair with Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.
A. No, I did not.
Q. (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you -- in either of these two conversations, the phone conversation at Packar's house and the bedroom conversation at Rockingham, did you acknowledge to Mr. Simpson that you had had an affair with Nicole?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.
A. No, I did not.
Q. (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you explain to Mr. Simpson anything by which he might have misconstrued that you were having an affair with Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and leading.
A. No. I said, "No, nothing happened."
martin II
10-17-2009, 10:30 PM
1993
January –
Orenthal testifies regarding avoiding contact with Nicole: “So I gave— I told her— I told my housekeeper, Michelle, and I told Kathy Randa that, you know, if Nicole called, that if it's about the kids, let me know immediately. If—ask her—if it's not about the kids, I don't want to hear about it."
”I saw her very briefly, her and her mother, when I was—the day after the Super Bowl, February 1. I had picked my kids up from school, and they were going to spend a few days with me, and when I went by the house to get their clothes, her and her mother were out front, and her father—mother came over and gave me a hug and Nicole came over and felt—started—attempted to start an altercation. And I just wouldn't hear it. I just got in my car and I waited for my kids ,and outside of that two or three minutes, I—I don't think I spoke to her at all during—from Christmas till mid-March.
Q. Now, when you use the word altercation, you mean an oral argument?
A.Yes.”
March – orenthal testifies
“Q. Now, in March of 1993, did the relationship between you and Nicole change somewhat?
A. I don't know, I guess maybe somewhat, but not really with—what happened was that at some point—she called me in mid-March, and—and I had answered the phone, and it was, as I said, the first time I had spoken to her, really, in—essentially in a—in two or three months, and she said she really needed to talk to me and felt that I was upset with her, and I told her I wasn't, and she asked why wouldn't I return her phone calls, 'cause I had been getting through Michelle and—through Nicole, I mean sometimes up to five calls a day, and she was sending me cookies on occasion and musical tapes with love songs on them. And I—you know, she thought I was mad at her. I told her I wasn't, I just didn't want to have any hassles. And she needed to talk to me. And somehow—someone else called, so the conversation ended. About two hours later, she showed up at my house with my kids and a couple of tapes and a letter.
Q. And, O.J., is this the—the letter that she showed up with in mid-March?
A. Yes.”
April - Nicole and orenthal began dating again
Faye testifies regarding conversations between herself and Nicole: “The discussions were, I felt, incomplete discussions. She had left out very important information to me at that time regarding the abusive nature of their relationship. She - we were in therapy together, group therapy together, and right before Nicole went, asked O.J. to reconcile, and she had said that all of the problems that they had had, she didn't really want to discuss because they were now in a new phase: O.J. had turned a new leaf in his life, O.J. had said he was going to be monogamous, O.J. had said that he was not going to do drugs, O.J. had said he was going to change his behavior, and she believed him so she didn't really discuss all of, anything that was really happening before.”
Orenthal testifies: "Well, some things that happened—I became aware of some things that had happened with her and some people that I knew. She was—I don't know. She was the girl that I had always known for 15 years. She was making a big effort, because she was taking golf lessons. Her—and then all her girlfriends would show up taking golf lessons. And I always—always enjoyed the times that he we spent with the kids. I began to get somewhat confused. I—began to be a little friction with my girlfriends and I, that Nicole would be — a few times when Paula was coming over, Nicole was at the house, and I didn't even know she was there. So I flew to San Francisco, to talk to my mother.
Q. Why did you fly to San Francisco to talk to your mother?
A. My mother. I had to get some advice from her. And essentially what she told me was, you know, for the kids' sake, maybe you should at least understand why she wants to get back together, and— and understand what your feelings were. Because I did have and always have had feelings for Nicole. So I—so I sort of took my mother's advice and I came back to Los Angeles. I called Nicole and I said, "We need to get away from everybody for two or three days, 'cause I need to talk to you and I need to find out what's going on." And we did.”
Some of what is in your post is in ojs book with the same words and expressions and spoken the same way which leads me to know he wrote all of the book story about his and Nicoles life. thanks imo
weezer
10-17-2009, 10:32 PM
I guess big man orenthal isn't going to be made fun of for asking his mommy for advise. . .:punch:
martin II
10-17-2009, 10:39 PM
The life of Nicole and oj, the guys she dated and ojs reaction is good reading as it was in his book.It has dip to do with what happened in the trial where he was found not guilty but good gossip especially what Faye had to say.
I noticed that fays testimony about drug use and another sensitive subject was not posted.imo
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 10:58 PM
As usually you are wrong again!!!!!
Hipcheck,
What legal reason did they have to enter the main house that morning?
weezer
10-17-2009, 10:58 PM
I'm sure Mr. Goldman would like the opportunity to thank everyone who purchased and read the book. ;)
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 10:59 PM
The life of Nicole and oj, the guys she dated and ojs reaction is good reading as it was in his book.It has dip to do with what happened in the trial where he was found not guilty but good gossip especially what Faye had to say.
I noticed that fays testimony about drug use and another sensitive subject was not posted.imo
Martin,
In his book, did he repeat what he said before about Nicole seeing other guys? That basically he could not say anything because of his own behavior?
Did he also talk about the promise he made to Judy Brown?
martin II
10-17-2009, 11:22 PM
I guess big man orenthal isn't going to be made fun of for asking his mommy for advise. . .:punch:
Lots of people talk to their mothers when they feel the need to. The differance in oj and park was ojs mother did not prompt him on how to falsy testify.IMO.
Obviously oj wanted to get his mothers opinion on whether he should see nicole or continue to give her the cold shoulder.imo
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 11:27 PM
Lots of people talk to their mothers when they feel the need to. The differance in oj and park was ojs mother did not prompt him on how to falsy testify.IMO.
Martin,
I find it natural that a person, regardless of age, would turn to a parent for advice, especially if the parent has given sage advice in the past.
The whole Park thing is a completely different matter. I can't say that I believe Park was lying on the stand. However, I do think with his mother being a lawyer, she knew exactly how to manipulate his answers to the advantage of the DA's. IMO.
martin II
10-17-2009, 11:37 PM
Martin,
In his book, did he repeat what he said before about Nicole seeing other guys? That basically he could not say anything because of his own behavior?
Did he also talk about the promise he made to Judy Brown?
i can check but i think oj, in the book, only talked about nicoles other boy friends when he said nicole had called him on one or two ocassions when she was having problems with one guy and she asked his advice and when she called him on another ocassion about being pregnant by another guy ansd asked his advice.He did not talk about all the boyfriends nicole had as Faye did.
I don't know about a promise to J bROWN
He may have had something to say about seeing Keith and Nicole as it related to his kids being in the house but not sure.
I will look tomorrow.
In the book he did talk more about how Nicole crashed one christman party that Paula had set up in new york when she found that Paula was planning
a christmas dinner/party at his ny condo for oj, herself and the kids.When oj told paula that Nicole had called with this emergency request that oj allow her to come to ny, paula got pissed and went home. imo
martin II
10-17-2009, 11:43 PM
Q. Did you apologize to Mr. Simpson in this conversation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and leading.
A: Yes. I said, "I am sorry. Nothing happened.
Q: (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you apologize to Mr. Simpson for having had an affair with Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.
A. No, I did not.
Q. (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you -- in either of these two conversations, the phone conversation at Packar's house and the bedroom conversation at Rockingham, did you acknowledge to Mr. Simpson that you had had an affair with Nicole?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.
A. No, I did not.
Q. (By Mr. Petrocelli) Did you explain to Mr. Simpson anything by which he might have misconstrued that you were having an affair with Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and leading.
A. No. I said, "No, nothing happened."
who is testifying?
martin II
10-17-2009, 11:49 PM
Martin,
Who testified to the stalkings? Where was all this evidence? Faye also said that Nicole saw Marcus that night or was going to. I wonder how she knew that?
I don't know but Cora testified that nicole was seeing Marcus agaqin just before she was killed and a neighbor saw a black MB auto parked in front of nicoles condo the evening/day of the murders.
We know faye talked to nicole that night so i guess nicoloe told her.
martin II
10-17-2009, 11:51 PM
I thought the testimony on the subject of 'Joseph' and Nicole interesting and telling:
faye's testimony: “. . .Joseph told her the reason he was not dating Nicole was “He said he felt that it was better, that O.J. was too much in love with Nicole and had not let go of her yet. . .That he had heard about the stalkings, he had heard about what happened, you know, with Alessandro, the threats to Alessandro. O.J. made it very clear to everybody around that Nicole was, even though she was separated, she was not single, and the men that were around at that time were very well aware of it. It was as if enter at your own risk, you know. They all were very aware that O.J. Simpson was volatile, that he was angry, and that he felt that he owned Nicole and that they had no place.”
orenthal's testimony: “. . . I think on one instance we had two sort of altercations or arguments. One was—I think I inadvertently said something to a guy about her new boyfriend and I thought she had told the guy and evidently she didn't and she came to my son's kickball game and was upset with me that I had mentioned something to him. She had found a guy and she had come to me for advice about the guy, a guy named Joseph. And I assumed she had told this other guy, Keith, who she always said wasn't her boyfriend, just he was a friend, and I had inadvertently—when I was picking my son up and they drove up, I sort of gave him my condolences, Keith, and I didn't realize that she hadn't told him yet. So she came to the kickball game and was pretty upset with me about that. . .”
Third party gossip by faye.i wonder how that was allowed.
GreenIce
10-17-2009, 11:53 PM
Third party gossip by faye.i wonder how that was allowed.
Martin,
Very little of what Faye has said or wrote has been confirmed. It would be interesting to see that all the names that Faye tossed out, if these men were interviewed.
GreenIce
10-18-2009, 12:01 AM
I don't know but Cora testified that nicole was seeing Marcus agaqin just before she was killed and a neighbor saw a black MB auto parked in front of nicoles condo the evening/day of the murders.
We know faye talked to nicole that night so i guess nicoloe told her.
Martin,
If you read Faye's testimony, notice how she provides an answer for everything, like Ron being there, Marcus Allen being there, etc. When OJ gave his interview, he never pointed the finger at anybody, but he did say that he didn't think Faye or Cora had anything to do with the murders. However, Faye pointed the finger at several people, she wasn't blantent about it, but it is there, IMO.
socaldiva
10-18-2009, 12:20 AM
1994
Before April Cabo trip (exact dates unknown)
Reichardt testifies: orenthal indicated he (orenthal) was thinking about seeking some professional assistance
Reichardt testifies:10 days before trip he has dinner with orenthal, Nicole, and faye where pills were taken away from faye.
March 31st thru April 7th: orenthal and Nicole trip to Cabo – orenthal leaves cabo on 3rd for Puerto Rico; Reichardt leaves on 4th
kato testifies cora tells him it was this trip where Nicole made the decision to end the relationship with orenthal
reichardt testifies orenthal expected to be in Puerto Rico week-and-a-half.
April 8th
reichardt testifies orenthal and faye were ‘probably talking once or twice a week, lengthy, right in the times after Cabo where orenthal was trying to find out from faye what was going on with Nicole. . . .after animated phone call between faye and orenthal, faye stated that "He is going to kill her if she keeps doing this driving him crazy."
April 30th – Nicole and orenthal attend Reichardt birthday party together
May 6th thru ? – Reichardt testifies:beginning a couple of days after the party he has several conversations over several days with orenthal about problems orenthal having with Nicole
May 19th - Nicole's birthday; orenthal gives Nicole expensive jewelry and a very expensive lighter.
May 22nd
Nicole gives bracelet back to orenthal but keeps the lighter
Nicole's entry for Sunday, May 22,1994”. . . We've officially split. I told O.J. we're going back to every other weekend. . . Has been gone the last four weekends.”
May 26th - Draft of the IRS letter by orenthal
May 27th thru 30th - faye and reichardt vacation in Cabo; still living together; faye ends engagement
May 28th – date orenthal was to start every other weekend visitation with the kids
May 31st thru June 11th - faye staying with Nicole and other friends
June 3rd – Nicole’s entry. . . "O.J. came to pick up kids at 8:30 p.m. They wanted to stay home because I let them organize sleepovers at last minute, thought daddy wasn't coming. Told O.J. I would drop them off first thing in the morning."
June 6th - IRS draft letter altered retyped by Taft
June 8th
reichardt writes “Get call from paul resnick to meet at Petit Four Restaurant 8:00. Nicole showed up late. Told me about freebase since just before Cabo trip Easter. I decided to not go and do intervention. Called friends to meet at 11:00 home. Called cousins house. She said Faye went home with Francesca. Met her at home. Argument. 11:00 intervention."
altered/retyped IRS letter sent to Nicole
date of the never sent letter with orders from orenthal to Nicole concerning Nicole & Gigi
June 9th – reichardt writes “"Nicole called how I was. Discussed Francesca. Nic didn't want to talk about it.”
June 11th – reichardt writes “6-11 visited Faye family session."
June 12th – Ron and Nicole are murdered
Reichardt writes “visited Faye p.m. arrow home. Nic called to see how I was about 5:30. O.J. called about 9:00. “
June 13th – reichardt writes “10:00 Paul Resnick called about Nic killed. We talked if Faye was safe. If it was a drug thing. Both felt it was possible. Discussed if we should have her go to his ranch in Idaho. But only people knew where she was, so she was safe. Called Albert at Exodus. Asked him how to handle it. They were going to talk to her and to stay available. Went to see her that night. Slept with gun by my side. She stayed two weeks inpatient then came out. Coexisted only she had no place to go.”
Only 4 days from Nicole giving Orenthal back the birthday bracelet until he drafts the letter to the IRS? I hadn't realized those two events were that close together. Very telling. If Orenthal told someone that he was considering professional help, he must have felt himself unraveling. Too bad he didn't follow through & get the help, Nicole & Ron would still be alive
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.