View Full Version : Random Discussions On The Case
i am sure oj would not like to have that judgement against him.But it seems he has just continued to make a little money here and some there. Regan books knew they were helping oj evade the judgemaent by paying him before the book was announced. Same was true with the sports video.
if fred did not want the blood money, the solution is simple GIVE IT ALL AWAY AND NO BLOOD WILL BE ON HIS HANDS. IMO
Accusing Fred Goldman of having blood on his hands is perhaps the most dispicable thing I've ever seen you say and that's saying a lot. How about if OJ Simpson didn't want blood on his hands he shouldn't have written that piece of trash? Even better -- he should have controlled his rage and not killed Ron and Nicole in the first place.
Could you please tell me why Mr. Goldman releasing the book puts blood on his hands but it was okay for OJ Simpson to actually write a book about the brutal killing of the mother of his children? He didn't give one cent of the profit away.
You should listen to GreenIce. She thinks OJ Simpson is innocent but is able to see Fred Goldman's motivations because he truly believes OJ Simpson killed his son.
martin II
10-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Accusing Fred Goldman of having blood on his hands is perhaps the most dispicable thing I've ever seen you say and that's saying a lot. How about if OJ Simpson didn't want blood on his hands he shouldn't have written that piece of trash? Even better -- he should have controlled his rage and not killed Ron and Nicole in the first place.
Could you please tell me why Mr. Goldman releasing the book puts blood on his hands but it was okay for OJ Simpson to actually write a book about the brutal killing of the mother of his children? He didn't give one cent of the profit away.
You should listen to GreenIce. She thinks OJ Simpson is innocent but is able to see Fred Goldman's motivations because he truly believes OJ Simpson killed his son.
TV
We all have opinions.
The potential money from the book was called blood money from the begining by many people. When HC and LBA had control of the rights fred said the book should not be published and should not see the light of day. This was when he was not scheduled to profit from it.
When the rights were given to fred and he stood to make money, it was perfectly ok for the book to be published and he immediately did so to make money for himself. If the book produced blood money when it was owned by others it was blood money when fred sold it.
Oj had a right to write any book he wanted to. No one has a right to try to dictate what he could or could not do based on what they think. No one can take this right from him.
obviously HC knew people would be interested in the book written by oj therefore the deal. When fred changed and added his comments to the book,
obviously people were not as interested in the book therefore had less than expected sales.
Since oj was found not to have commited the crimes he was charged with i have no reason to claim he murdered anyone.
The money did not become less dirty because fred was seeking it than when oj was. If it was dirtry money then is is dirty money now.
It is kind of difficlut to say money is not the issue and at the same time constantly send lawyers to court to get the money. That is not believable.
Oj said two things. 'I will not pay a dime because i did not do the crime" and " i wrote the book for the money"
Fred is going after the money but saying it is not about the money. imo:cool:
martin II
10-23-2009, 12:09 AM
Accusing Fred Goldman of having blood on his hands is perhaps the most dispicable thing I've ever seen you say and that's saying a lot. How about if OJ Simpson didn't want blood on his hands he shouldn't have written that piece of trash? Even better -- he should have controlled his rage and not killed Ron and Nicole in the first place.
Could you please tell me why Mr. Goldman releasing the book puts blood on his hands but it was okay for OJ Simpson to actually write a book about the brutal killing of the mother of his children? He didn't give one cent of the profit away.
You should listen to GreenIce. She thinks OJ Simpson is innocent but is able to see Fred Goldman's motivations because he truly believes OJ Simpson killed his son.
I believe fred believes oj killed his son but he has no proof of that. He believes what the prosecution told us and we know that was not true according to the criminal justice system. I am sure there were many that just accepted the prosecution claims and ignored the defense work as they proved that the prosecutions witnesses could not be believed.
imo
TV
We all have opinions.
The potential money from the book was called blood money from the begining by many people. When HC and LBA had control of the rights fred said the book should not be published and should not see the light of day. This was when he was not scheduled to profit from it.
When the rights were given to fred and he stood to make money, it was perfectly ok for the book to be published and he immediately did so to make money for himself. If the book produced blood money when it was owned by others it was blood money when fred sold it.
Oj had a right to write any book he wanted to. No one has a right to try to dictate what he could or could not do based on what they think. No one can take this right from him.
obviously HC knew people would be interested in the book written by oj therefore the deal. When fred changed and added his comments to the book,
obviously people were not as interested in the book therefore had less than expected sales.
Since oj was found not to have commited the crimes he was charged with i have no reason to claim he murdered anyone.
The money did not become less dirty because fred was seeking it than when oj was. If it was dirtry money then is is dirty money now.
It is kind of difficlut to say money is not the issue and at the same time constantly send lawyers to court to get the money. That is not believable.
Oj said two things. 'I will not pay a dime because i did not do the crime" and " i wrote the book for the money"
Fred is going after the money but saying it is not about the money. imo:cool:
You can use the :cool: smiley all you want but it doesnt make what you're saying cool. You know as well as I do that the criminal trial verdict did not mean he didn't commit the murders -- it meant the jury decided the prosecution didn't prove it's case. In the civil trial he was nailed to the wall but unfortunately life in prison wasn't an option. Mr. Goldman is seeking the only recourse he can and that's to get OJ Simpson to pay for his crimes finanacially. You refuse to admit that OJ Simpson writing the book is worse than Fred Goldman taking it away from him. It's hard to believe you and I live in the same country and speak the same language -- our sense of morality and right/wrong are completely different. I'll take mine over yours any day.
I believe fred believes oj killed his son but he has no proof of that. He believes what the prosecution told us and we know that was not true according to the criminal justice system. I am sure there were many that just accepted the prosecution claims and ignored the defense work as they proved that the prosecutions witnesses could not be believed.
imo
I can't discuss Mr. Goldman with you any longer without making rude comments to you so just keep on spinning your false claims about him...I'm done. :punch: :seeya:
martin II
10-23-2009, 03:29 AM
You can use the :cool: smiley all you want but it doesnt make what you're saying cool. You know as well as I do that the criminal trial verdict did not mean he didn't commit the murders -- it meant the jury decided the prosecution didn't prove it's case. In the civil trial he was nailed to the wall but unfortunately life in prison wasn't an option. Mr. Goldman is seeking the only recourse he can and that's to get OJ Simpson to pay for his crimes finanacially. You refuse to admit that OJ Simpson writing the book is worse than Fred Goldman taking it away from him. It's hard to believe you and I live in the same country and speak the same language -- our sense of morality and right/wrong are completely different. I'll take mine over yours any day.
TV
The fact that you are not able to read opinions different from yours without letting your anger run wild is not my problem. I see no reason why my sense of right and wrong has to be the same as yours.I have done quite well with mine as it is.
It is your right to believe what you want about oj simpson but you don't just get the right to make decisions on what i should believe or make statements
about my morality because you believe oj killed nicole and ron.
I have no responsibility to admit something that i don't believe just because you believe it. I heard the same trial as you did and came to a different opinion than you on ojs guilt. It seems that since you believe he was guilty
he had no right to write his book. Or to be paid for it. That his daughter was a co-conspiritor and that the book was blood money only when it belonged to oj. The book did not change from being about blood money to clean money when it was given to fred.
Oj had a constitutional right to write his book for money. After the judge took LBS assets and gave it to fred he had a right to sell it. He also had the right
to say the book should not see the light of day and then proceed to sell it for money for himself. It is just my opinion that some people know it was and is about the oney. IMO:cool:
martin II
10-23-2009, 03:32 AM
I can't discuss Mr. Goldman with you any longer without making rude comments to you so just keep on spinning your false claims about him...I'm done. :punch: :seeya:
I have not been rude to you but If you are going to be rude then i agree.
:cool:
martin II
10-23-2009, 08:22 AM
GI
I read the complete article on goldman and the Amish.This explains their point of view.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/2007/09/two-portraits-of-grief-and-for.html
I have not been rude to you but If you are going to be rude then i agree.
:cool:
I didn't ask for your agreement -- I certainly don't need it.
TV
The fact that you are not able to read opinions different from yours without letting your anger run wild is not my problem. I see no reason why my sense of right and wrong has to be the same as yours.I have done quite well with mine as it is.
It is your right to believe what you want about oj simpson but you don't just get the right to make decisions on what i should believe or make statements
about my morality because you believe oj killed nicole and ron.
I have no responsibility to admit something that i don't believe just because you believe it. I heard the same trial as you did and came to a different opinion than you on ojs guilt. It seems that since you believe he was guilty
he had no right to write his book. Or to be paid for it. That his daughter was a co-conspiritor and that the book was blood money only when it belonged to oj. The book did not change from being about blood money to clean money when it was given to fred.
Oj had a constitutional right to write his book for money. After the judge took LBS assets and gave it to fred he had a right to sell it. He also had the right
to say the book should not see the light of day and then proceed to sell it for money for himself. It is just my opinion that some people know it was and is about the oney. IMO:cool:
I don't care if you think OJ Simpson is innocent but it's unnecessary for you to malign a grieving man to attempt to make that piece of trash look good. Sure, Simpson had a right to write the book -- he has the right to exploit the brutal murders he committed all he wants. Unfortunately for him his options are limited at the present time but I'm sure he has some scheme in the works. ;)
If you're silly enough to think I'd waste my time trying to make decisions for you or let my anger 'run wild' because of something you've said I really don't know what to say to you. As for your morality, I made up my mind about that long ago and it hasn't changed. :shrug:
Its just me
10-23-2009, 10:48 AM
I don't care if you think OJ Simpson is innocent but it's unnecessary for you to malign a grieving man to attempt to make that piece of trash look good. Sure, Simpson had a right to write the book -- he has the right to exploit the brutal murders he committed all he wants. Unfortunately for him his options are limited at the present time but I'm sure he has some scheme in the works. ;)
If you're silly enough to think I'd waste my time trying to make decisions for you or let my anger 'run wild' because of something you've said I really don't know what to say to you. As for your morality, I made up my mind about that long ago and it hasn't changed. :shrug:
The following remark says it better than I can. IMHOO there is not an ounce of sound judgement "trying" to compare what is clearly two totally different circumstances. Also IMHOO it lacks sound judgement to compare Simpson to Goldman.....Simpson is believed to be a murder by many....Goldman is a man who lost his son by the hands many believe is the murderer. I'd choose Fred Goldman to be my friend and neighbor over OJ Simpson any day of any week. OJ Simpson's history shows he is a threat to society....any place he breathed air. OJ's last explosion of anger landed him behind bars....who knows God could have answered someone's prayer. :shrug: What ever Simpson is now under control.....Hopefully he will someday read about the Amish and it will touch his soul.
Quote:
Without taking away anything from the Amish in this case, the killer of their children is dead. The alleged killer of Mr. Goldman's son was golfing in Florida and dating starlets. None of that makes the Amish approach anything other than a beautiful expression of God's grace, but regarding Mr. Goldman, there's a wealthy and famous man trying any way he can to profit from the murder of Mr. Goldman's son.
The following remark says it better than I can. IMHOO there is not an ounce of sound judgement "trying" to compare what is clearly two totally different circumstances. Also IMHOO it lacks sound judgement to compare Simpson to Goldman.....Simpson is believed to be a murder by many....Goldman is a man who lost his son by the hands many believe is the murderer. I'd choose Fred Goldman to be my friend and neighbor over OJ Simpson any day of any week. OJ Simpson's history shows he is a threat to society....any place he breathed air. OJ's last explosion of anger landed him behind bars....who knows God could have answered someone's prayer. :shrug: What ever Simpson is now under control.....Hopefully he will someday read about the Amish and it will touch his soul.
Quote:
Without taking away anything from the Amish in this case, the killer of their children is dead. The alleged killer of Mr. Goldman's son was golfing in Florida and dating starlets. None of that makes the Amish approach anything other than a beautiful expression of God's grace, but regarding Mr. Goldman, there's a wealthy and famous man trying any way he can to profit from the murder of Mr. Goldman's son.
Great post, IJM. :beer: I noticed the article about Mr. Goldman and the Amish didn't accuse Mr. Goldman of being interested only in money. I liked what you said "...Hopefully he will someday read about the Amish and it will touch his soul." It hadn't occurred to me until now that maybe OJ Simpson could learn something from the Amish ways...maybe he could start with their disapproval of murder.
martin II
10-23-2009, 12:09 PM
It really does not matter what most think. oj was found not guilty by a legal jury. People have the right to think what they choose but it matters very little if one belives in the coort system. Most people were not in the court room. Most people don't know the details of the case.Most people know what media reports told them.
But people have a right to ignore the court system but oj was found not guilty so opinions will never change that. It is just noise.imo:cool:
martin II
10-23-2009, 12:12 PM
Great post, IJM. :beer: I noticed the article about Mr. Goldman and the Amish didn't accuse Mr. Goldman of being interested only in money. I liked what you said "...Hopefully he will someday read about the Amish and it will touch his soul." It hadn't occurred to me until now that maybe OJ Simpson could learn something from the Amish ways...maybe he could start with their disapproval of murder.
You may not know it but i doubt the Amish have ever heard of fred and would have no reason to comment on him.
"Hate destroys communities."
You may not know it but i doubt the Amish have ever heard of fred and would have no reason to comment on him.
"Hate destroys communities."
You may not know it but if you actually read what I wrote you would realize that I didn't say the Amish commented on Fred Goldman. I'll reword it for you -- I noticed the article about Mr. Goldman and the Amish didn't accuse Mr. Goldman of being interested only in money.
Its just me
10-23-2009, 02:04 PM
You may not know it but if you actually read what I wrote you would realize that I didn't say the Amish commented on Fred Goldman. I'll reword it for you -- I noticed the article about Mr. Goldman and the Amish didn't accuse Mr. Goldman of being interested only in money.
LOL If one would "read" it's clear the author (David Kuo) read two articles and added his thoughts in his editorial at the link. He read the one about Mr. Goldman in the Washington Post and Paul sent Mr. Kuo the one about the Amish. He commented on both articles and shared his personal feelings by compairing someone hurting "his own child" and his hope to be like the Amish and having Jesus living in and with him. The author had the fortitude to "judge himself" and not Mr. Goldman or the Amish.
I just don't understand how simple reading can be turned into something it is not.
quote:
I hope, in the face of horror, that I would be like the Amish. But how easily I could see myself becoming much more like Mr. Goldman. The other day my 11-year-old told me that a friend of hers was followed home by a black SUV whose driver kept asking the girl if she wanted a ride.
As I listened I felt this seething rage - this indescribable ferociousness aimed towards anyone who would hurt my girl. I joked with her that if anyone ever touched her it would be the very worst day of their lives because I would find them and inflict upon them significant bodily harm.
The truth, however, is that it wasn't a joke to me. I would. Forgiveness? Towards someone who hurt my child? You must be kidding. And so I sympathize with Fred Goldman.
But then there is Jesus...
Jesus lives with and in the Amish. There is no other explanation for their forgiveness and love. They are defined by Him. They live with a true faith. I am awed and humbled and staggered. And in our day and age where revenge and violence and war are glorified they are that still, small voice of God whispering that there is another way - his way and that "hostility destroys community."
martin II
10-23-2009, 04:19 PM
You may not know it but if you actually read what I wrote you would realize that I didn't say the Amish commented on Fred Goldman. I'll reword it for you -- I noticed the article about Mr. Goldman and the Amish didn't accuse Mr. Goldman of being interested only in money.
TV
The intent of the article was not to blame anyone but to highligh how the Amish community dealth with that horrible event by allowing Jesus to influence their thinking and behavior.
I thought the last comment was profound and indicates the lesson intended by the article.
But then there is Jesus...
"Jesus lives with and in the Amish. There is no other explanation for their forgiveness and love. They are defined by Him. They live with a true faith. I am awed and humbled and staggered. And in our day and age where revenge and violence and war are glorified they are that still, small voice of God whispering that there is another way - his way and that "hostility destroys community."
It seems that some encourage fred to continue his hatred based on their hatred of oj simpson and without any real concern for fred. imo:cool:
martin II
10-23-2009, 05:20 PM
A different view
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221725/fred_goldman_loses_to_oj_simpsonagain.html
"Fred Goldman Loses to OJ Simpson...Again"
LOL If one would "read" it's clear the author (David Kuo) read two articles and added his thoughts in his editorial at the link. He read the one about Mr. Goldman in the Washington Post and Paul sent Mr. Kuo the one about the Amish. He commented on both articles and shared his personal feelings by compairing someone hurting "his own child" and his hope to be like the Amish and having Jesus living in and with him. The author had the fortitude to "judge himself" and not Mr. Goldman or the Amish.
I just don't understand how simple reading can be turned into something it is not.
quote:
I hope, in the face of horror, that I would be like the Amish. But how easily I could see myself becoming much more like Mr. Goldman. The other day my 11-year-old told me that a friend of hers was followed home by a black SUV whose driver kept asking the girl if she wanted a ride.
As I listened I felt this seething rage - this indescribable ferociousness aimed towards anyone who would hurt my girl. I joked with her that if anyone ever touched her it would be the very worst day of their lives because I would find them and inflict upon them significant bodily harm.
The truth, however, is that it wasn't a joke to me. I would. Forgiveness? Towards someone who hurt my child? You must be kidding. And so I sympathize with Fred Goldman.
But then there is Jesus...
Jesus lives with and in the Amish. There is no other explanation for their forgiveness and love. They are defined by Him. They live with a true faith. I am awed and humbled and staggered. And in our day and age where revenge and violence and war are glorified they are that still, small voice of God whispering that there is another way - his way and that "hostility destroys community."
I don't understand how the intent of the article has been misinterpreted either but the message is clear. Also, I think some people have forgiveness confused with releasing the offender from any punishment for the offense. You can forgive someone for what they've done and still want them to pay for what they did. So even if Mr. Goldman forgave OJ Simpson it doesn't mean his actions would change.
Its just me
10-23-2009, 07:56 PM
I don't understand how the intent of the article has been misinterpreted either but the message is clear. Also, I think some people have forgiveness confused with releasing the offender from any punishment for the offense. You can forgive someone for what they've done and still want them to pay for what they did. So even if Mr. Goldman forgave OJ Simpson it doesn't mean his actions would change.
Exactly...and the purpose for the civil trial was to hold OJ responsible if he was found to be liable and he was. OJ continues to owe Mr. Goldman and if Mr. Goldman doesn't stay on top of it... IMHOO OJ will swindle him of every cent he can. OJ was found liable in a court of law and nothing the Amish does or don't do...will not release OJ of his obligation to pay Mr. Goldman. FWIW to some who don't seem to know or understand....In the Bibical book of Romans....it clearly tells us about the law of the land plus there has been nothing posted that shows how the Amish feels about a murderer who is alive and needs punished. I don't know but I would have to see a quote to believe they would want a murderer set free and unpunished or they did not believe in the law of the land.
Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial and to have put him behind bars would have been an injustice...on the flip side OJ was found liable in the civil trial and for him not to pay what the court determined is the same kind of injustice. MHO applying common sense.
martin II
10-23-2009, 08:16 PM
I don't understand how the intent of the article has been misinterpreted either but the message is clear. Also, I think some people have forgiveness confused with releasing the offender from any punishment for the offense. You can forgive someone for what they've done and still want them to pay for what they did. So even if Mr. Goldman forgave OJ Simpson it doesn't mean his actions would change.
tv
What i got from the Amish article is that they realized that carrying hatred in a way is a burden for the hater and does damage to them not the person being hated.
Discussing the pros and cons of freds actions is not bashing him. A discussion/debate is based on different views opinions being discussed. That is how i see it.imo
One can forgive but not forget. But to actively take actions to support hate against another is what is harmful.imo
tv
What i got from the Amish article is that they realized that carrying hatred in a way is a burden for the hater and does damage to them not the person being hated.
Discussing the pros and cons of freds actions is not bashing him. A discussion/debate is based on different views opinions being discussed. That is how i see it.imo
One can forgive but not forget. But to actively take actions to support hate against another is what is harmful.imo
Discussing Mr. Goldman's actions is not the same as saying he's only trying to profit from the death of his son. Sorry you don't see the difference. You talk about Fred Goldman's actions supporting hate but I see OJ Simpson's murder of two people as the ultimate expression of hate.
martin II
10-23-2009, 10:51 PM
The Amish did not deal with what ifs.It dealth only with their ideas about what hate can do to the hater and the community and their reason for their action. They believe in the word of the lord.imo
The Amish did not deal with what ifs.It dealth only with their ideas about what hate can do to the hater and the community and their reason for their action. They believe in the word of the lord.imo
...and the Lord said "Thou shalt not kill". You said all religious teachings are too strict for you so maybe you think that this rule is too strict? :shrug:
Exactly...and the purpose for the civil trial was to hold OJ responsible if he was found to be liable and he was. OJ continues to owe Mr. Goldman and if Mr. Goldman doesn't stay on top of it... IMHOO OJ will swindle him of every cent he can. OJ was found liable in a court of law and nothing the Amish does or don't do...will not release OJ of his obligation to pay Mr. Goldman. FWIW to some who don't seem to know or understand....In the Bibical book of Romans....it clearly tells us about the law of the land plus there has been nothing posted that shows how the Amish feels about a murderer who is alive and needs punished. I don't know but I would have to see a quote to believe they would want a murderer set free and unpunished or they did not believe in the law of the land.
Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial and to have put him behind bars would have been an injustice...on the flip side OJ was found liable in the civil trial and for him not to pay what the court determined is the same kind of injustice. MHO applying common sense.
I agree that it's doubtful the Amish don't believe in punishment for crimes. Forgiveness and punishment are not at odds with each other and is in keeping with bible teachings.
You make a good point that if the criminal trial verdict is honored and respected then the civil trial verdict should be also and the debt repaid or at least an honest attempt made to do so. Instead, he's been able to thumb his nose at the civil justice system and Fred Goldman. However, true colors usually show eventually and that's why he's sitting in the slammer right now.
martin II
10-23-2009, 11:41 PM
Discussing Mr. Goldman's actions is not the same as saying he's only trying to profit from the death of his son. Sorry you don't see the difference. You talk about Fred Goldman's actions supporting hate but I see OJ Simpson's murder of two people as the ultimate expression of hate.
oj was found not guilty of murder in a criminal trial. He has never been found guilty of murder so your post is incorrect.imo
martin II
10-23-2009, 11:49 PM
...and the Lord said "Thou shalt not kill". You said all religious teachings are too strict for you so maybe you think that this rule is too strict? :shrug:
tv
God's Wrath: "Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay," Says the Lord
Listen | Watch | Download | Podcast
Download: Audio | Video
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Piper February 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
martin II
10-23-2009, 11:51 PM
Fred Goldman on Oprah: If you spot him in the men's section at Nordstrom, don't ask to try on the size 12 Bruno Maglis...
Anyone catch the Valley's most famous Nordstrom employee on Oprah yesterday? I'm talking about the silver-mustachioed Fred Goldman, father of O.J. Simpson-victim Ron. See, Goldman, who recently had been working in the Scottsdale Nordstrom's men's department, was on Oprah Winfrey's show with Ron's sister Kim shilling for his version of O.J.'s now-infamous pseudo-confession If I Did It. You remember, the book Goldman was so pissed about before he won the rights to it in court.
Goldman looked uncomfortable, and how could he not be? After all, as Oprah pointed out, back when O.J. and publishing exec Judith Regan were behind the book, Goldman was denouncing it, going on Larry King to announce that, "The fact that someone is willing to publish this garbage...is just morally despicable to me. I would hope that no one buys the book."
The Goldman version of the infamous O.J. tome.
Now here the guy is on national TV trying to make an argument for the very same snuff book. Goldman complains that he and his family have not been able to collect on the $21 million awarded to the Goldmans in 1997 as a result of their civil suit against Simpson. So this is their chance. Indeed, the Goldmans will receive 90% of the profits from the book, according to the Oprah show. That's 17 cents on every book sold.
So what if Simpson had been putting out a DVD with footage of Ron's mutilated body? Would Goldman have sued for the rights, repackaged it and sold it to the very same public he asked to reject it? Anyway you slice it, Goldman's one-eighty on all this smacks of betrayal, money-grubbing, and media-whoring. And this lame cliche that it might help victims of domestic violence is total hooey. Goldman told Oprah:
"I hope that one single woman in an abusive relationship reads this book and says, 'God, that could be me. I have to get out and save my own life.' One single woman will be worth it."
Hey, tell it to Denise Brown, sister of the murdered Nicole Brown Simpson. Actually, he couldn't tell it to her because Denise Brown refused to even be seated near Goldman, whom she's been denouncing left and right as a hypocrite. Brown was only slightly muted on the Oprah show compared to print interviews she's given. Still, she came off as an avenging angel, full of righteous fury towards Fred Goldman et famille for pulling this stunt, one she wants no part of. To Oprah, she complained,
"I truly believe that they did wrong, that they did me wrong this time. Everybody stood up and said no to the publication of this book. I stood my ground on that. I still don't think it should be published. I think it is a morally wrong thing to do."
Can't say I care much about the morality of it, I just think Goldman's a hypocrite. I'm sure he'll sell plenty of copies though. And this little Vegas incident O.J.'s alleged to be involved in will likely help sales, along with Goldman's many media appearances. BTW, you missed your chance to score a free copy. It was up on scribd.com, the free Internet library, until about a week or so ago. It's since been taken down "at the request of the copyright holder." That Fred Goldman doesn't miss a beat.
martin II
10-24-2009, 12:27 AM
...and the Lord said "Thou shalt not kill". You said all religious teachings are too strict for you so maybe you think that this rule is too strict? :shrug:
I believe murder is wrong. But no one in this case has been found guilty of murder so i don't know what you are talking about. imo
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 12:28 AM
oj was found not guilty of murder in a criminal trial. He has never been found guilty of murder so your post is incorrect.imo
Martin,
In the Amish case, they know who killed the children, they also know the killer took his own life. IMO, the Amish realized they would never have any answers to these crimes and this person who did it obviously was mentally ill.
I agree with you that Simpson was found not guilty of the crimes. I have always posted that I believe he is innocent, not just not guilty. However, the media created Fred Goldman in many ways. They ensured him that any path he took he was rightous in doing it. I think many of these same people have turned around and not given him the support they once gave him.
As I have posted before, I don't think either man cares what anyone thinks of them. At the end of the day, I don't think Fred Goldman will ever get what he is seeking and I think he knows that. He wants his son back and knows that is never going to happen but what he can make happen is thinking that he is making Simpson's life miserable. IMO, he hasn't done that and he will never do that. But if that is what keeps him going......
However, what is interesting is that many of the laws that Simpson has used to protect his assets have been place for decade upon decade. Yet, now these laws are distasteful and illegal because OJ Simpson used them--yet not one of them has been repealed. You gotta ask yourself why. IMO.
oj was found not guilty of murder in a criminal trial. He has never been found guilty of murder so your post is incorrect.imo
Perhaps you don't understand that just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder it means he's innocent of murder.
I believe murder is wrong. But no one in this case has been found guilty of murder so i don't know what you are talking about. imo
I'm sure you don't.
tv
God's Wrath: "Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay," Says the Lord
Listen | Watch | Download | Podcast
Download: Audio | Video
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Piper February 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
So, OJ Simpson has killed two people and you think he shouldn't be punished on earth but wait for God's vengeance? Oh, for goodness sakes, it's time for you to stop preaching. :D
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 12:48 AM
Perhaps you don't understand that just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder it means he's innocent of murder.
TV,
I am pretty sure you mean that just because he was found not guilty of murder does not mean he is innocent. And I agree with you on that.
However, isn't it fair to say that just because he was found liable, which means more likely then not that he did kill Ron and Nicole, does not mean that he in fact did murder them?
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 01:10 AM
Discussing Mr. Goldman's actions is not the same as saying he's only trying to profit from the death of his son. Sorry you don't see the difference. You talk about Fred Goldman's actions supporting hate but I see OJ Simpson's murder of two people as the ultimate expression of hate.
TV,
You made a very powerful and true comment a few posts back. You correctly said that Mr. Goldman is not a rich man. When the Goldmans' did their book about Ron, there were negative comments about him making money off of Ron's death. I have always believed and I have posted about this a long time ago, while the Goldmans did have sympathy, that sympathy was not going to make his house payment, his car payments, but food on his table for his family, pay the electric bill, etc. Every day Kim and her stepmother were in the courtroom. Them being in the courtroom did not help the pay the bills either. Mr. Goldman was in the courtroom almost everyday and while his employer may have been extremely sympathic and understood Fred's need to be in the courtroom, does not mean they paid him while he was there.
If Mr. Goldman used any of the monies that he received to pay bills that he accumlated due to his loss or work, his wife's loss of work, etc., I don't consider it blood money nor do I consider it a profit.
Perhaps what is being overlooked is that Mr. Goldman has been put in a position of not only defending Ron but also having to remind people that his son's life was just as dear as Nicole's life. That he is missed just as much as Nicole is and that regardless of what he did for living, does not mean that his life is worth less then Nicole's. Again, this is my opinon.
As I stated before, it is none of our business what Goldman does with the money but it is also none of our business what Simpson has done with the money either.
I can't fault Mr. Simpson for doing what he can to avoid the judgement but I also can't fault Mr. Goldman for persuing the judgement.
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 01:19 AM
Quote:
Without taking away anything from the Amish in this case, the killer of their children is dead. The alleged killer of Mr. Goldman's son was golfing in Florida and dating starlets. None of that makes the Amish approach anything other than a beautiful expression of God's grace, but regarding Mr. Goldman, there's a wealthy and famous man trying any way he can to profit from the murder of Mr. Goldman's son.
IJM,
Mr. Simpson never said that he could profit from the murders, it was the civil trial jurors who claimed this. That is how the arrived at the amount of the settlement.
Like it or not, understand it or not, there are many people who have no problem buying or paying good money for the works of people like Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacey. I don't get it any more then I get women who correspond with murderers while in jail and some of them get married to them.
Isn't it fair to say that because of the money awarded by the civil trial jurors, that Mr. Simpson would have to profit from the murders in order to pay off the award?
And wouldn't any money he made since the trials, regardless how he made it, would be considered blood money?
Its just me
10-24-2009, 01:46 AM
So, OJ Simpson has killed two people and you think he shouldn't be punished on earth but wait for God's vengeance? Oh, for goodness sakes, it's time for you to stop preaching. :D
I think OJ has plenty to eat and drink so there is no need to feed him or give him drink. OJ's got to abide by the law of the land or be punished just like the rest of us do.
New International Study Bible: Mat: 5: 25-26 Jesus speaking:
Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison
I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
TV,
I am pretty sure you mean that just because he was found not guilty of murder does not mean he is innocent. And I agree with you on that.
However, isn't it fair to say that just because he was found liable, which means more likely then not that he did kill Ron and Nicole, does not mean that he in fact did murder them?
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry about that.
I can see your logic except that not guilty means not proven and liable means proven. But, a verdict in any trial doesn't change the truth of what really happened or didn't happen. My feeling is that we have to accept the legal verdicts but come to our own conclusions. :)
TV,
You made a very powerful and true comment a few posts back. You correctly said that Mr. Goldman is not a rich man. When the Goldmans' did their book about Ron, there were negative comments about him making money off of Ron's death. I have always believed and I have posted about this a long time ago, while the Goldmans did have sympathy, that sympathy was not going to make his house payment, his car payments, but food on his table for his family, pay the electric bill, etc. Every day Kim and her stepmother were in the courtroom. Them being in the courtroom did not help the pay the bills either. Mr. Goldman was in the courtroom almost everyday and while his employer may have been extremely sympathic and understood Fred's need to be in the courtroom, does not mean they paid him while he was there.
If Mr. Goldman used any of the monies that he received to pay bills that he accumlated due to his loss or work, his wife's loss of work, etc., I don't consider it blood money nor do I consider it a profit.
Perhaps what is being overlooked is that Mr. Goldman has been put in a position of not only defending Ron but also having to remind people that his son's life was just as dear as Nicole's life. That he is missed just as much as Nicole is and that regardless of what he did for living, does not mean that his life is worth less then Nicole's. Again, this is my opinon.
As I stated before, it is none of our business what Goldman does with the money but it is also none of our business what Simpson has done with the money either.
I can't fault Mr. Simpson for doing what he can to avoid the judgement but I also can't fault Mr. Goldman for persuing the judgement.
Thanks for a good post. The only point I disagree with is that OJ Simpson is justified in avoiding the judgement. It's a legal obligation. As for it not being our business what Simpson has done with his money -- that may be true but it is Fred Goldman's business.
I think OJ has plenty to eat and drink so there is no need to feed him or give him drink. OJ's got to abide by the law of the land or be punished just like the rest of us do.
New International Study Bible: Mat: 5: 25-26 Jesus speaking:
Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison
I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Exactly. What if we let everyone that commits a crime wait for God's judgement? Our lives would be overrun with dangerous criminals and our daily existence would be chaos.
Its just me
10-24-2009, 02:54 AM
IJM,
Mr. Simpson never said that he could profit from the murders, it was the civil trial jurors who claimed this. That is how the arrived at the amount of the settlement.
Like it or not, understand it or not, there are many people who have no problem buying or paying good money for the works of people like Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacey. I don't get it any more then I get women who correspond with murderers while in jail and some of them get married to them.
Isn't it fair to say that because of the money awarded by the civil trial jurors, that Mr. Simpson would have to profit from the murders in order to pay off the award?
And wouldn't any money he made since the trials, regardless how he made it, would be considered blood money?
IMHOO if OJ went to work in an honest position after the civil trial the money he would have been paid would not have been blood money but good honest cash. FWIW I'm not too favorable of "me" using the term blood money. I don't have a problem with others using it....I just personally don't like to.
IMHOO OJ helped write a book which included a chapter about the murders. I have no doubt Simpson's purpose was to make money and there is nothing in the law that prevented the book from being written....but the civil trial and the bankruptcy court changed OJ's plans. Mr. Goldman was awarded the book rights and OJ was ordered to pay damages to Mr. Goldman because he was found liable for the deaths of Ron and Nicole by the jury. Until the judgment against OJ is satisfied OJ will continue to be in debt to Mr. Goldman. As long as Mr. Goldman doesn't break the law I don't have a problem with anything he does to collect what he was awarded by the courts. IMHOO If Mr. Goldman has any common sense at all…I believe he does....he knows he will never get all OJ owes him and I certainly don't see anything wrong with him trying to get every dime he can. IMHOO Mr. Goldman is not the villain but the victim.
Most civil cases against an individual where there is a judgment for damages…..the full judgment is not paid in full. It’s legally owed but one has to be as good as the Amish to work and make payments. The binding thing is….the defendant will never be able to prosper and enjoy the fruits of his labor until the judgment is paid. IMOO that alone would be pretty bad especially with the Simpson case because he appeared to enjoy his wealth.
martin II
10-24-2009, 08:20 AM
After the criminal trial oj was blackballed by every company that he use to work for and all those that he had never worked for. freds and the medias daily attacks prevented any employment for oj. NBC for a moment considered giving him his job but they were attacked until that idea was canned.They prevented oj from making a living at his regular employment and i guess he did not want to shine shoes.
After the civil trial fred was expecting to be paid but he was front and center attacking oj which did not allow any company to hire oj.That is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Just like oj, most civil judgements are never paid anyway. imo
martin II
10-24-2009, 08:31 AM
comment from a blog
I am in total agreement with the previous blogger. Nothing is more insidious than for a father to continue to attempt to capitalize on the death of his son. For years now, we've all been subjected to scenes of Fred Goldman doing all in his power to collect on the ridiculous civil judgement that his and the Brown family were awarded. As the other blogger stated, neithrt Nicole Simpson nor Ron Goldman were without stain. Did they desrve their fates? Of course not, but none of us were there to witness their last moments and the question of O.J.'s involvement was legally addressed. The continuous attacks on the man's character and attempts to prevent him living his own life are too much. Everyone has had it with Goldman. If O.J. swallowed a quarter Fred would go after the turg to keep him from having it. His son's memory would be best served by allowing him rest and showing that he had a modicum of his own decency and dignity.
Add a Comment
Posted on 09/17/2007 at 12:09:00 AM
martin II
10-24-2009, 08:36 AM
January 15: 2007: In the wake of a Newsweek story that paraphrases a chapter entitled "The Night in Question," from O.J. Simpson's notorious, unpublished book If I Did It, Simpson is today denying that he even wrote the chapter in question, reports the Associated Press.
"I'm saying it's a fictional creation," said Simpson in a telephone interview. "It has so many (factual) holes in it that anybody who knew anything about it would know that I didn't write
Breaking News: O.J. Simpson Says, "The Ghostwriter Did It!" it."
The chapter, acquired by Newsweek by an "anonymous source," was the work of a ghostwriter, O.J. Simpson maintains, and is not a confession. He says that the ghostwriter did all the research for the "hypothetical" depiction of the murders of O.J.'s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, and wrote the chapter from that research.
martin II
10-24-2009, 10:38 AM
Exactly. What if we let everyone that commits a crime wait for God's judgement? Our lives would be overrun with dangerous criminals and our daily existence would be chaos.
This is about individuals forgiving other individuals it has nothing to do with gov.
when oj wrote his book he was engaged in legal work.
martin II
10-24-2009, 10:50 AM
GI
Based on commente here, some, if found liable in a civil court for something that they did not do, would just volunteer to pay the judgement with a smile.
i don't believe that for one moment but that is what is expected of oj.
Its just me
10-24-2009, 10:57 AM
Until OJ pays Goldman in full....OJ owes Goldman. Fact.
Goldman has every right to expect to get paid by any OJ funds available. Fact.
If anyone in the public doesn't like what Goldman was awarded by the court and the way he proceeds to get it....they should put Goldman on ignore and stop making their own self miserable and others miserable by having to hear such nonsense. An opinion.
Goldman has not been on trial because of any wrong doings. It's OJ that was on trial and it's OJ sitting in jail. Fact.
Trying to tear apart the reputation of an innocent man (Mr. Goldman) to make a man whose wrong doings finally caught up with him (Simpson) look good is worthless and has no value except for those who can't accept things at face value. Simpson is what he is...He was found liable in the civil case for the murder of Ron and Nicole and he was found guilty in the Nevada criminal case.....He was lucky that has been the only two things that caught up with him in the judicial system. He is also a wife/girlfriend beater/abuser and a liar under oath. OJ's fame to be an American hero/idol was shot down by none other than OJ Simpson himself. He now is sitting in jail because of his criminal activity. Not much of a hero/idol. IMHOO but believe it to be fact.
martin II
10-24-2009, 10:57 AM
IJM,
Mr. Simpson never said that he could profit from the murders, it was the civil trial jurors who claimed this. That is how the arrived at the amount of the settlement.
Like it or not, understand it or not, there are many people who have no problem buying or paying good money for the works of people like Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacey. I don't get it any more then I get women who correspond with murderers while in jail and some of them get married to them.
Isn't it fair to say that because of the money awarded by the civil trial jurors, that Mr. Simpson would have to profit from the murders in order to pay off the award?
And wouldn't any money he made since the trials, regardless how he made it, would be considered blood money?
The jury decided that oj would make about 5 million a year so they gave fred this large settlement. It did not turn out that way.
martin II
10-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Exactly. What if we let everyone that commits a crime wait for God's judgement? Our lives would be overrun with dangerous criminals and our daily existence would be chaos.
Then you don't believe in this word of the lord??????
God's Wrath: "Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay," Says the Lord
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 11:33 AM
Thanks for a good post. The only point I disagree with is that OJ Simpson is justified in avoiding the judgement. It's a legal obligation. As for it not being our business what Simpson has done with his money -- that may be true but it is Fred Goldman's business.
TV,
The laws that Simpson has used to avoid paying the judgement and his assets that are protected by law, were put in place decades and decades ago. These laws are adopted by individual states and some I believe are federal laws. I don't understand why the furor is all on Mr. Simpson when others have done the exact same thing in the past and others will do it in the future.
As for him doing as little as possible to pay the judgement, I have no problem with that because I truly believe any person who was in his position, who has not only been found not guilty in a criminal trial but has always proclaimed his innocence, would do the same. I know I would.
martin II
10-24-2009, 11:57 AM
money changed freds mind.
When HC owned the book rights fred said "the book should never see the light of day." Then he made a request " if HC wants to do the right thing they should give the book rights to me " when HC cancelled the book freds position was " The book should never see the light of day and should be destroyed and other comments close to that.
When LBA got the rights to the book fred went to court seeking total control of the book rejecting any effort to share with NBS ESTATE. He wanted it all.
The judge gave the book rights to him. the same book that he had said "should never see the light of day, he was now selling for money for himself
Then you don't believe in this word of the lord??????
God's Wrath: "Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay," Says the Lord
What I believe regarding the Lord isn't important here. We're talking about the laws of man which we must have to live civilized and peaceful lives. God's judgement of OJ Simpson and us all will be what it is. I've been taught not to judge the state of another person's soul even though I've been guilty of it from time to time. I try to leave that up to God.
In the meantime, a legal judgement has been handed down and Simpson is legally obligated to attempt repayment. Just as the criminal verdict set him free, the civil verdict found him liable.
TV,
The laws that Simpson has used to avoid paying the judgement and his assets that are protected by law, were put in place decades and decades ago. These laws are adopted by individual states and some I believe are federal laws. I don't understand why the furor is all on Mr. Simpson when others have done the exact same thing in the past and others will do it in the future.
As for him doing as little as possible to pay the judgement, I have no problem with that because I truly believe any person who was in his position, who has not only been found not guilty in a criminal trial but has always proclaimed his innocence, would do the same. I know I would.
I have no problem with Florida state law protecting certain assets. I have no problem with OJ Simpson having money to live his life. My problem with him comes when he deliberately hides money from Fred Goldman and, according to martin, has money hidden in secret off-shore accounts. His pension was more than enough for any reasonable person (and his four children) to live on. If he had to dial down his lifestyle a little that would be the price he would have to pay for losing the civil trial and having a judgement against him.
I don't see why it's okay for him to be thrilled with the criminal verdict and happily waltz out of the courtroom but refuse to honor the civil verdict. What if he'd been found guilty in the criminal trial? Do you think he could have said "Nah, I'm not guilty so I'm not going to jail. See ya later" :shrug:
martin II
10-24-2009, 01:59 PM
I have no problem with Florida state law protecting certain assets. I have no problem with OJ Simpson having money to live his life. My problem with him comes when he deliberately hides money from Fred Goldman and, according to martin, has money hidden in secret off-shore accounts. His pension was more than enough for any reasonable person (and his four children) to live on. If he had to dial down his lifestyle a little that would be the price he would have to pay for losing the civil trial and having a judgement against him.
I don't see why it's okay for him to be thrilled with the criminal verdict and happily waltz out of the courtroom but refuse to honor the civil verdict. What if he'd been found guilty in the criminal trial? Do you think he could have said "Nah, I'm not guilty so I'm not going to jail. See ya later" :shrug:
tv
if you were found liable for a crime you did not commit and had a 33 mil $ judgement given against you, would you just cash in your house and other assets that you use to support your family and give all to the person holding the judgement???
martin II
10-24-2009, 02:01 PM
What I believe regarding the Lord isn't important here. We're talking about the laws of man which we must have to live civilized and peaceful lives. God's judgement of OJ Simpson and us all will be what it is. I've been taught not to judge the state of another person's soul even though I've been guilty of it from time to time. I try to leave that up to God.
In the meantime, a legal judgement has been handed down and Simpson is legally obligated to attempt repayment. Just as the criminal verdict set him free, the civil verdict found him liable.
did you assume that i did not believe murder was wrong????
martin II
10-24-2009, 04:02 PM
I have no problem with Florida state law protecting certain assets. I have no problem with OJ Simpson having money to live his life. My problem with him comes when he deliberately hides money from Fred Goldman and, according to martin, has money hidden in secret off-shore accounts. His pension was more than enough for any reasonable person (and his four children) to live on. If he had to dial down his lifestyle a little that would be the price he would have to pay for losing the civil trial and having a judgement against him.
I don't see why it's okay for him to be thrilled with the criminal verdict and happily waltz out of the courtroom but refuse to honor the civil verdict. What if he'd been found guilty in the criminal trial? Do you think he could have said "Nah, I'm not guilty so I'm not going to jail. See ya later" :shrug:
The judgement that fred has against oj is no different than a judgement a credit card company gets in court for non payment of debt.
The debitor has no responsibility to inform creditor that he has money if he is refusing to pay. It is the responsibility of the judgement holder to find the debitors money and put a lein or take the money. If the holder cannot find the assets he is just out of luck.
OJ said he was not going to pay a dime on his own so fred will have to continue to find the money which has been a difficult problem so far. At ojs current income level that judgement will never be paid so fred has a useless piece of paper.
It may be that oj will find another way to write a book while in jail for more money.imo
tv
if you were found liable for a crime you did not commit and had a 33 mil $ judgement given against you, would you just cash in your house and other assets that you use to support your family and give all to the person holding the judgement???
He killed Ron and Nicole -- he owes the plaintiffs the money. He should have attempted to make some kind of payment.
The judgement that fred has against oj is no different than a judgement a credit card company gets in court for non payment of debt.
The debitor has no responsibility to inform creditor that he has money if he is refusing to pay. It is the responsibility of the judgement holder to find the debitors money and put a lein or take the money. If the holder cannot find the assets he is just out of luck.
OJ said he was not going to pay a dime on his own so fred will have to continue to find the money which has been a difficult problem so far. At ojs current income level that judgement will never be paid so fred has a useless piece of paper.
It may be that oj will find another way to write a book while in jail for more money.imo
I already said in another post that I'm sure he's scheming to make money from his jail cell somehow or other. The flip side of OJ Simpson not disclosing his income is that Fred Goldman has every right to do what he has to do to find out where his income is being hidden.
As for Mr. Goldman holding a worthless piece of paper that may be true but the satisfaction he gets from knowing the killer of his son is sporting prisonwear and funky ugly-a** shoes everyday probably makes up for it.
did you assume that i did not believe murder was wrong????
I never assume anything when it comes to you. :)
Its just me
10-24-2009, 08:30 PM
I already said in another post that I'm sure he's scheming to make money from his jail cell somehow or other. The flip side of OJ Simpson not disclosing his income is that Fred Goldman has every right to do what he has to do to find out where his income is being hidden.
As for Mr. Goldman holding a worthless piece of paper that may be true but the satisfaction he gets from knowing the killer of his son is sporting prisonwear and funky ugly-a** shoes everyday probably makes up for it.
and he's scared his cell mate is gonna kill him and he thinks about killing his own self cause he said he can't take being in jail and he probably can't stand those ugly-a** shoes I saw him wearing in the video of him in jail. Red or Orange IIRC.
I'd actually feel sorry for him if I didn't fully believe he murdered 2 people. Probably not paying Mr. Goldman is the only joy he has now. OH well he can only blame his self for being in such a mess....but I'm sure he's sitting in jail every day thinking its all some other person's fault.
GreenIce
10-24-2009, 09:37 PM
I have no problem with Florida state law protecting certain assets. I have no problem with OJ Simpson having money to live his life. My problem with him comes when he deliberately hides money from Fred Goldman and, according to martin, has money hidden in secret off-shore accounts. His pension was more than enough for any reasonable person (and his four children) to live on. If he had to dial down his lifestyle a little that would be the price he would have to pay for losing the civil trial and having a judgement against him.
I don't see why it's okay for him to be thrilled with the criminal verdict and happily waltz out of the courtroom but refuse to honor the civil verdict. What if he'd been found guilty in the criminal trial? Do you think he could have said "Nah, I'm not guilty so I'm not going to jail. See ya later" :shrug:
TV,
I don't believe Simpson has any off shore hidden accounts. If he did, then since they are off shore and hidden, we wouldn't know about them would we? :) There was never enough time or money for Simpson to have set these up after the murders. If he had any before the murders, then again, since they are secret hidden off shore accounts, we would not know about them.
IMO, I don't think you can compare the trials or really the verdicts. What is at stake for both trials, IMO, can't be compared. No matter how much people may believe otherwise, a civil trial is all about money and how much 12people think one life is worth or not worth. Liable is not clear and convincing proof of guilty, just like not guilty does not equal innocent.
The reason why I can support Mr. Simpson's position on not paying off the judgement is because I do know if I was in the same position, I would do exactly the same thing. I would never pay for a crime that I had nothing to do with. However, I don't know what I would do if I was in Mr. Goldman's position. I really don't. I think in his situation, you have very limited options and I don't know what I would do, I really don't.
martin II
10-24-2009, 11:04 PM
TV,
I don't believe Simpson has any off shore hidden accounts. If he did, then since they are off shore and hidden, we wouldn't know about them would we? :) There was never enough time or money for Simpson to have set these up after the murders. If he had any before the murders, then again, since they are secret hidden off shore accounts, we would not know about them.
IMO, I don't think you can compare the trials or really the verdicts. What is at stake for both trials, IMO, can't be compared. No matter how much people may believe otherwise, a civil trial is all about money and how much 12people think one life is worth or not worth. Liable is not clear and convincing proof of guilty, just like not guilty does not equal innocent.
The reason why I can support Mr. Simpson's position on not paying off the judgement is because I do know if I was in the same position, I would do exactly the same thing. I would never pay for a crime that I had nothing to do with. However, I don't know what I would do if I was in Mr. Goldman's position. I really don't. I think in his situation, you have very limited options and I don't know what I would do, I really don't.
GI
Yesterday i read for the first time the civil trial jury reasons for their verdict. From their comments their minds were made up from the bergining. i also read petros opening statement and against repeated defense objections the judge allowed him to give testimony in his opening over and over again. imo
martin II
10-24-2009, 11:09 PM
I never assume anything when it comes to you. :)
Well you asked me if i believed the lords word about murder and i answered.
i asked you about the lords word about vengence and you responded your belief did not matter.
weezer
10-25-2009, 12:03 AM
1 Peter 2:13–14 (NIV)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,
14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Romans 13:7-8
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
martin II
10-25-2009, 12:05 AM
TV,
I don't believe Simpson has any off shore hidden accounts. If he did, then since they are off shore and hidden, we wouldn't know about them would we? :) There was never enough time or money for Simpson to have set these up after the murders. If he had any before the murders, then again, since they are secret hidden off shore accounts, we would not know about them.
IMO, I don't think you can compare the trials or really the verdicts. What is at stake for both trials, IMO, can't be compared. No matter how much people may believe otherwise, a civil trial is all about money and how much 12people think one life is worth or not worth. Liable is not clear and convincing proof of guilty, just like not guilty does not equal innocent.
The reason why I can support Mr. Simpson's position on not paying off the judgement is because I do know if I was in the same position, I would do exactly the same thing. I would never pay for a crime that I had nothing to do with. However, I don't know what I would do if I was in Mr. Goldman's position. I really don't. I think in his situation, you have very limited options and I don't know what I would do, I really don't.
GI
I think that most people would do exactly what oj did about the judgement if they found themselves in his position.imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 12:10 AM
1 Peter 2:13–14 (NIV)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,
14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Romans 13:7-8
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
And your position on vengence is what?
Its just me
10-25-2009, 02:27 AM
My Pastor is forever warning us against the one verse Charlie. You Must study the Bible as a whole. Just saying. FWIW
TV,
I don't believe Simpson has any off shore hidden accounts. If he did, then since they are off shore and hidden, we wouldn't know about them would we? :) There was never enough time or money for Simpson to have set these up after the murders. If he had any before the murders, then again, since they are secret hidden off shore accounts, we would not know about them.
IMO, I don't think you can compare the trials or really the verdicts. What is at stake for both trials, IMO, can't be compared. No matter how much people may believe otherwise, a civil trial is all about money and how much 12people think one life is worth or not worth. Liable is not clear and convincing proof of guilty, just like not guilty does not equal innocent.
The reason why I can support Mr. Simpson's position on not paying off the judgement is because I do know if I was in the same position, I would do exactly the same thing. I would never pay for a crime that I had nothing to do with. However, I don't know what I would do if I was in Mr. Goldman's position. I really don't. I think in his situation, you have very limited options and I don't know what I would do, I really don't.
I'm just saying what martin said -- he claims that OJ Simpson has hidden off-shore accounts. I don't know. :shrug:
The verdict of liabilty was clear and convincing in the civil trial. Daniel Petrocelli went above and beyond what the prosecution did in the criminal trial. Also, it didn't help OJ Simpson's case for him to be caught in so many lies on the witness stand. I might understand your opinion that he's justified in not paying the judgement if he were not guilty. I'm not sure what he's told himself all these years in order to be okay with what he did and so angry at Mr. Goldman but he's convinced himself pretty well.
martin II
10-25-2009, 08:29 AM
I'm just saying what martin said -- he claims that OJ Simpson has hidden off-shore accounts. I don't know. :shrug:
The verdict of liabilty was clear and convincing in the civil trial. Daniel Petrocelli went above and beyond what the prosecution did in the criminal trial. Also, it didn't help OJ Simpson's case for him to be caught in so many lies on the witness stand. I might understand your opinion that he's justified in not paying the judgement if he were not guilty. I'm not sure what he's told himself all these years in order to be okay with what he did and so angry at Mr. Goldman but he's convinced himself pretty well.
Actuallu he would know better than you. i believe.
Well you asked me if i believed the lords word about murder and i answered.
i asked you about the lords word about vengence and you responded your belief did not matter.
I was commenting on what you said about religious teachings being too strict for you. Since you'd been commenting on your personal beliefs I figured you were okay with talking about them. I already told you that the Lord's vengeance will be what it is but we have to have man's laws in order to live in a civilized society. In other words, God will take his vengence but we have to impose laws to live by here on earth.
Actuallu he would know better than you. i believe.
Who would know what better?
GI
I think that most people would do exactly what oj did about the judgement if they found themselves in his position.imo
I have to agree with this. If a person murdered two people then it would be little beans for them to ignore a legal judgement. Makes perfect sense to me.
weezer
10-25-2009, 11:58 AM
I have to agree with this. If a person murdered two people then it would be little beans for them to ignore a legal judgement. Makes perfect sense to me.
I've been doing some extra reading on this -- wonder how orenthal got a mortgage with a $33m judgment against him?
martin II
10-25-2009, 12:38 PM
Who would know what better?
oj
who else
martin II
10-25-2009, 12:42 PM
I've been doing some extra reading on this -- wonder how orenthal got a mortgage with a $33m judgment against him?
Florida law. happens every day.
I've been doing some extra reading on this -- wonder how orenthal got a mortgage with a $33m judgment against him?
Come on, weezer -- he's the juice!
oj
who else
If you say so. :confused:
martin II
10-25-2009, 05:57 PM
Come on, weezer -- he's the juice!
i am sure you know that oj is not the only person with a judgement against them that moved to florida and purchased a home. its not because he is the juice. That had nothing to do with it,imo
and he's scared his cell mate is gonna kill him and he thinks about killing his own self cause he said he can't take being in jail and he probably can't stand those ugly-a** shoes I saw him wearing in the video of him in jail. Red or Orange IIRC.
I'd actually feel sorry for him if I didn't fully believe he murdered 2 people. Probably not paying Mr. Goldman is the only joy he has now. OH well he can only blame his self for being in such a mess....but I'm sure he's sitting in jail every day thinking its all some other person's fault.
I have no doubt he thinks it's everyone's fault but his own. It can't be easy for a man his age to adjust to living in jail. I have read he's scared of his cellmate but I have a feeling that there are some that treat him like a hero. After all, I'm sure his football stories liven up the boring existence of prison life and you know he's pouring on the charm. He must hate those shoes -- don't forget this is a guy who couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he wouldn't have worn dress shoes with sweat pants because he's such a snappy dresser. :tongue:
i am sure you know that oj is not the only person with a judgement against them that moved to florida and purchased a home. its not because he is the juice. That had nothing to do with it,imo
How would I know that?
It was a joke, martin. You know, like hahaha.
martin II
10-25-2009, 06:12 PM
Perhaps you don't understand that just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder it means he's innocent of murder.
The best system we have was used to determine if oj commited murder. the answer was not guilty as charged. I prefer that system over what you think happened. There is not proof that your system can get to the truth. imo
weezer
10-25-2009, 06:16 PM
I have no doubt he thinks it's everyone's fault but his own. It can't be easy for a man his age to adjust to living in jail. I have read he's scared of his cellmate but I have a feeling that there are some that treat him like a hero. After all, I'm sure his football stories liven up the boring existence of prison life and you know he's pouring on the charm. He must hate those shoes -- don't forget this is a guy who couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he wouldn't have worn dress shoes with sweat pants because he's such a snappy dresser. :tongue:
IIRC, orenthal made the statement on one of his "Live From Vegas" tapes that he couldn't do lock down time. LOL -- you made me remember the picture of him in the airport with his fanny pack, shorts, and visor. :D
martin II
10-25-2009, 06:19 PM
How would I know that?
It was a joke, martin. You know, like hahaha.
General knowledge media readings.
I ACcept it was a joke if you say so.
There would be no reason for oj to have a problem getting a mortage in florioda. Obviously he didn't. Mortage companies are not run by public opinion polls. They give mortages based on financial status and ability to pay. imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 06:27 PM
I have no doubt he thinks it's everyone's fault but his own. It can't be easy for a man his age to adjust to living in jail. I have read he's scared of his cellmate but I have a feeling that there are some that treat him like a hero. After all, I'm sure his football stories liven up the boring existence of prison life and you know he's pouring on the charm. He must hate those shoes -- don't forget this is a guy who couldn't have killed Ron and Nicole because he wouldn't have worn dress shoes with sweat pants because he's such a snappy dresser. :tongue:
just like others in jail his age, oj will do as fine as anyone else. Little made up negative comments about what some think his situation is just entertainment for those that engage in it. imo
weezer
10-25-2009, 07:02 PM
:mad: Looks like WAMU deserved to go belly-up.
"Someone in Florida had made a second-mortgage loan to O.J. Simpson, and I just about blew my top, because there was this huge judgment against him from his wife's parents," she recalled. Simpson had been acquitted of killing his wife Nicole and her friend but was later found liable for their deaths in a civil lawsuit; that judgment took precedence over other debts, such as if Simpson defaulted on his WaMu loan.
"When I asked how we could possibly foreclose on it, they said there was a letter in the file from O.J. Simpson saying 'the judgment is no good, because I didn't do it.' "
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2010131911.html
:mad: Looks like WAMU deserved to go belly-up.
"Someone in Florida had made a second-mortgage loan to O.J. Simpson, and I just about blew my top, because there was this huge judgment against him from his wife's parents," she recalled. Simpson had been acquitted of killing his wife Nicole and her friend but was later found liable for their deaths in a civil lawsuit; that judgment took precedence over other debts, such as if Simpson defaulted on his WaMu loan.
"When I asked how we could possibly foreclose on it, they said there was a letter in the file from O.J. Simpson saying 'the judgment is no good, because I didn't do it.' "
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2010131911.html
So, OJ Simpson's denial takes precedence over the civil verdict. That is too funny! :biggrin:
just like others in jail his age, oj will do as fine as anyone else. Little made up negative comments about what some think his situation is just entertainment for those that engage in it. imo
I didn't say he would have any more trouble than anyone else adjusting to jail. This is what I said -- It can't be easy for a man his age to adjust to living in jail. You are so touchy.
General knowledge media readings.
I ACcept it was a joke if you say so.
There would be no reason for oj to have a problem getting a mortage in florioda. Obviously he didn't. Mortage companies are not run by public opinion polls. They give mortages based on financial status and ability to pay. imo
Good thing or he would have been living in a cardboard box. This is sarcasm just so you'll know how I meant it.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 07:28 PM
I'm just saying what martin said -- he claims that OJ Simpson has hidden off-shore accounts. I don't know. :shrug:
The verdict of liabilty was clear and convincing in the civil trial. Daniel Petrocelli went above and beyond what the prosecution did in the criminal trial. Also, it didn't help OJ Simpson's case for him to be caught in so many lies on the witness stand. I might understand your opinion that he's justified in not paying the judgement if he were not guilty. I'm not sure what he's told himself all these years in order to be okay with what he did and so angry at Mr. Goldman but he's convinced himself pretty well.
TV,
I don't believe the evidence in the civil trial even came close to clear and convincing----Petrocelli made it quite clear in his motions, that the rules of evidence in a civil trial were different and because they were different, the defense basically could not put on a defense.
I find it bizarre that a judge, regardless of what realm he benches for, would actually come and out say that the chain of custody, the collection of evidence, etc., doesn't matter. The fact it was collected is all that matters. The defense was put into the unfair and unrealistic positon of having to name who, what, when, where and why. To this day, I find amazing that people do believe that if someone is going to tamper or plant evidence, they must do it in front of witnesses or they must talk about it.
Just to be sure, I honestly question the evidence for the many reasons that have been debated for years and years and will still be debated in the future. I also have posted that even if the evidence that I believed was planted does not mean Simpson is innocent. The timeline for me is the most convincing evidence of innocence, followed by the demeanor witnesses. Not trying to debate the evidence, just giving my position on it.
weezer
10-25-2009, 07:41 PM
So, OJ Simpson's denial takes precedence over the civil verdict. That is too funny! :biggrin:
well, it wouldn't be the first time he used the 'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes' defense/excuse! :eek:
weezer
10-25-2009, 07:43 PM
Good thing or he would have been living in a cardboard box. This is sarcasm just so you'll know how I meant it.
ain't that the truth -- oh wait, isn't that about the size of his new home?
I don't believe anyone honestly believes you can get a mortgage when you have had one home go into foreclosure for non-payment, owe the IRS for unpaid taxes, AND a $33m civil judgement. . . .:eek:
martin II
10-25-2009, 07:52 PM
So, OJ Simpson's denial takes precedence over the civil verdict. That is too funny! :biggrin:
OJ received a mortage because he was able to show ability to support the mortage payment. Just like everyone else.With the $1,000,000 he said he paid his mortage and taxes . But there has always been gossip about his affairs and those willing to pass it along. so the talk about him defaulting on his mortage is part of that. imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 07:56 PM
ain't that the truth -- oh wait, isn't that about the size of his new home?
I don't believe anyone honestly believes you can get a mortgage when you have had one home go into foreclosure for non-payment, owe the IRS for unpaid taxes, AND a $33m civil judgement. . . .:eek:
It may be that you only know one side of ojs financial statement. Do you know if cash down payment was involved and how much it was?. Do you know if irs taxes were being paid monthly as per a irs agreement. Do you actually know he had a IRS debt. Did the IRS tell you he had? or did the IRS sen you his tax statement? His $25,000 mo pension was out of reach of the judgement so he could easily meet the monthly payment for a mortage.
The bottom line is he applied for a mortage and was approved by the mortage company and he moved into his house.imo
The $1,000,000 should have been enough to pay the mortage off completely.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 07:57 PM
I didn't say he would have any more trouble than anyone else adjusting to jail. This is what I said -- It can't be easy for a man his age to adjust to living in jail. You are so touchy.
TV,
I agree with you statement, however, I would like to add, I think it would be difficult for any person to adjust to prison. However, there are people, such as Richard Speck and Charles Manson who don't mind jail, it was the where they grew up and they have all the perks in the inside that they had on the outside.
I can't imagine what it would be like and I think if it happened to me, that I somehow ended up in jail for the rest of my life, I might be looking to punch my own ticket. Of course, that goes against my faith but again, I can't imagine anything worse then spending the rest of my life in prision.
martin II
10-25-2009, 09:01 PM
TV,
I don't believe the evidence in the civil trial even came close to clear and convincing----Petrocelli made it quite clear in his motions, that the rules of evidence in a civil trial were different and because they were different, the defense basically could not put on a defense.
I find it bizarre that a judge, regardless of what realm he benches for, would actually come and out say that the chain of custody, the collection of evidence, etc., doesn't matter. The fact it was collected is all that matters. The defense was put into the unfair and unrealistic positon of having to name who, what, when, where and why. To this day, I find amazing that people do believe that if someone is going to tamper or plant evidence, they must do it in front of witnesses or they must talk about it.
Just to be sure, I honestly question the evidence for the many reasons that have been debated for years and years and will still be debated in the future. I also have posted that even if the evidence that I believed was planted does not mean Simpson is innocent. The timeline for me is the most convincing evidence of innocence, followed by the demeanor witnesses. Not trying to debate the evidence, just giving my position on it.
The timeline proves that oj did not kill anyone.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 09:09 PM
The timeline proves that oj did not kill anyone.
Martin,
I think the timeline also proves that more then one person was involved, I think at least 2 and maybe up to 4.
weezer
10-25-2009, 09:12 PM
IIRC, orenthal made the statement on one of his "Live From Vegas" tapes that he couldn't do lock down time. LOL -- you made me remember the picture of him in the airport with his fanny pack, shorts, and visor. :D
http://www.zimbio.com/Michael+McClinton/articles/2/Tough+Testimony+Against+OJ+Simpson
". . .He also talks about having to come up with a believable story to tell police. “I’m going to be all over the TV,” Simpson says. “I’m trying to figure out what story to tell ‘em.” Simpson was very clear on one thing saying, “I just don’t wanna be in no mother (expletive) lock-up,” he says. . ."
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 09:24 PM
The timeline proves that oj did not kill anyone.
Martin,
I forgot to add, there was simply no motive. He had no reason to kill her and despite what has been "reported", I still think Simpsons believe they could get the other back any time they wanted. Again, IMO.
martin II
10-25-2009, 09:26 PM
:mad: Looks like WAMU deserved to go belly-up.
"Someone in Florida had made a second-mortgage loan to O.J. Simpson, and I just about blew my top, because there was this huge judgment against him from his wife's parents," she recalled. Simpson had been acquitted of killing his wife Nicole and her friend but was later found liable for their deaths in a civil lawsuit; that judgment took precedence over other debts, such as if Simpson defaulted on his WaMu loan.
"When I asked how we could possibly foreclose on it, they said there was a letter in the file from O.J. Simpson saying 'the judgment is no good, because I didn't do it.' "
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2010131911.html
If it were true that oj defaulted on his mortage someone else would own the home. We know he still owns his home so the story must be untrue.imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 09:29 PM
http://www.zimbio.com/Michael+McClinton/articles/2/Tough+Testimony+Against+OJ+Simpson
". . .He also talks about having to come up with a believable story to tell police. “I’m going to be all over the TV,” Simpson says. “I’m trying to figure out what story to tell ‘em.” Simpson was very clear on one thing saying, “I just don’t wanna be in no mother (expletive) lock-up,” he says. . ."
You sound like there is something wrong with oj not wanting to go to jail. Who do you know that wants to go to jail?
martin II
10-25-2009, 09:33 PM
Martin,
I forgot to add, there was simply no motive. He had no reason to kill her and despite what has been "reported", I still think Simpsons believe they could get the other back any time they wanted. Again, IMO.
Thats true. Nicole told kato that her ultimate objective was to remarry oj.
martin II
10-25-2009, 09:36 PM
Martin,
I think the timeline also proves that more then one person was involved, I think at least 2 and maybe up to 4.
My idea is 2 at the murders and 1-2 drove the getaway van.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 09:37 PM
Thats true. Nicole told kato that her ultimate objective was to remarry oj.
Martin,
I don't know if that ever would have happened. But that does not mean they would have stopped trying to make it work.
Also, I would love to have heard from the woman who was staring at the bodies when the couple came upon Nicole's body.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 09:44 PM
My idea is 2 at the murders amd 1-2 drove the getaway van.
Martin,
I believe one was inside the house, someone had to be listening for the children. Since I believe Faye was involved, I think she would have told them about the kids and may have very well told them that Sydney heard Nicole crying and fighting.
I have always found it interesting that the police officer who said he took the call from the woman at 10:30 p.m. that night was never asked to listen to Faye's voice and do a comparison.
martin II
10-25-2009, 10:04 PM
Martin,
I believe one was inside the house, someone had to be listening for the children. Since I believe Faye was involved, I think she would have told them about the kids and may have very well told them that Sydney heard Nicole crying and fighting.
I have always found it interesting that the police officer who said he took the call from the woman at 10:30 p.m. that night was never asked to listen to Faye's voice and do a comparison.
If the children had seen the killers they would not have known who they were especially if they had on a mask.
When the first cop told his boss that oj was involved and furhman confirmed that belief vannater agreed and from that point on they collected evidence and did certain things to confirm that they were only interested in getting oj.
When they thought they had everything at bundy they needed they told Lou to wash the crime scene down with water.I now believe that furhman did go to rockingham and return before he and the other cops went there.There was mass confusion at Bundy. 20 or more cops inside the cage.No one was keeping tract on furhman or anyone else.I think furhmans car was parked on dorothy.The drive to rockingham was 5 minutes each way.imo
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 10:08 PM
If the children had seen the killers they would not have known who they were especially if they had on a mask.
When the first cop told his boss that oj was involved and furhman confirmed that belief vannater agreed and from that point on they collected evidence and did certain things to confirm that they were only interested in getting oj.
When they thought they had everything at bundy they needed they told Lou to wash the crime scene down with water.I now believe that furhman did go to rockingham and return before he and the other cops went there.There was mass confusion at Bundy. 20 or more cops inside the cage.No one was keeping tract on furhman or anyone else.I think furhmans car was parked on dorothy.The drive to rockingham was 5 minutes each way.imo
Martin,
I don't think the killers were afraid of being identified. Since they were in no hurry to leave the scene. But I do believe they wanted the bodies found much sooner then they were.
I believe it is possible that the ski mask was found or seen but it would not surprise me if that disappeared or Fuhrman lied to justify going over to Rockingham.
martin II
10-25-2009, 10:36 PM
Gi
The other hugh issue was Heidstra saw a white car at dorothy and Bundy at 10:45. No proof that oj was driving that car just a white car.
Then Kato heard the noise he said at 10:45 no proof who made the noise and no proof that oj or anyone else was in the s walkway.
The jury could have just ignored both of these testimonies as there was no proof to back either event up.
Park saw two bags that oj had just deposited on his porch seconds before Park saw oj return into the house when park drove up to the front door. There were the two bags and what park saw that gave the jury proof that oj was inside his house when park arrived. Those issues i am sure the jury remembered. imo
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 10:40 PM
Gi
The other hugh issue was Heidstra saw a white car at dorothy and Bundy at 10:45. No proof that oj was driving that car just a white car.
Then Kato heard the noise he said at 10:45 no proof who made the noise and no proof that oj or anyone else was in the s walkway.
The jury could have just ignored both of these testimonies as there was no proof to back either event up.
Park saw two bags that oj had just deposited on his porch seconds before Park saw oj return into the house when park drove up to the front door. There were the two bags and what park saw that gave the jury proof that oj was inside his house when park arrived. Those issues i am sure the jury remembered. imo
Martin,
There is no proof the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders. As I have posted before, if they did have anything to do with the murders, Kato was meant to hear them.
Simpson showed no alarm when told about them and tried to help Kato find out what they were. IMO, the only thing the thumps prove is that MF had a reason and a place to deposit the glove. Again, IMO.
martin II
10-25-2009, 10:41 PM
GI
There is a web site that has some movie script or play that furhman wrote that is a just like the bundy murders or very close to it. i will look for it.imo
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 10:49 PM
GI
There is a web site that has some movie script or play that furhman wrote that is a just like the bundy murders or very close to it. i will look for it.imo
Martin,
Is that the web site that has the theory that MF had something to do with the murders?
martin II
10-25-2009, 10:57 PM
Martin,
There is no proof the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders. As I have posted before, if they did have anything to do with the murders, Kato was meant to hear them.
Simpson showed no alarm when told about them and tried to help Kato find out what they were. IMO, the only thing the thumps prove is that MF had a reason and a place to deposit the glove. Again, IMO.
As furhman suspected kato could have been smoking something and thought he heard something. The investigation of the bushes on both sides of the fence and the walkway indicates that no one fell against katos wall. So i have no idea as to the source of what kato thinks he heard. There is also nothing to prove that someone did anything that made a noise that kato said he heard. So we are left with kato saying something and no proof that it ever happened. imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Martin,
Is that the web site that has the theory that MF had something to do with the murders?
yes it is.
It also describes the conflict in mf story of what time he got home that night and what his wife called Geraldo and said.
GreenIce
10-25-2009, 11:04 PM
As furhman suspected kato could have been smoking something and thought he heard something. The investigation of the bushes on both sides of the fence and the walkway indicates that no one fell against katos wall. So i have no idea as to the source of what kato thinks he heard. There is also nothing to prove that someone did anything that made a noise that kato said he heard. So we are left with kato saying something and no proof that it ever happened. imo
Martin,
If it was someone back there, it would have been very, very easy to recreate it. The fact that no attempt was made and the way MC handled kato, IMO, proves that she had no clue what the noise meant.
martin II
10-25-2009, 11:26 PM
Martin,
If it was someone back there, it would have been very, very easy to recreate it. The fact that no attempt was made and the way MC handled kato, IMO, proves that she had no clue what the noise meant.
Clarks one problem was vannatters testimony that he thought oj went from the bronco up the driveway to his front door. He and others said their investigation proved that no one jumped the fense or was in the walkway.
Since clarke never offered the jury of how the glove got there i guess the jury went with no one was in the walkway did including oj.
Plus they already had proof that oj was in his house.
martin II
10-25-2009, 11:38 PM
Martin,
If it was someone back there, it would have been very, very easy to recreate it. The fact that no attempt was made and the way MC handled kato, IMO, proves that she had no clue what the noise meant.
The prosecution with all the detectives could not come up with a explination as to how the glove got there tells me that no one dropped it there but someone could have tossed it there from the gate without walking into the walkway. imo
martin II
10-25-2009, 11:48 PM
Martin,
If it was someone back there, it would have been very, very easy to recreate it. The fact that no attempt was made and the way MC handled kato, IMO, proves that she had no clue what the noise meant.
Throughout the trial clarke thought she had the jury eating out of her hand.
She had no answers for many things.The jury was listening more closely than what she thought. in her closing she told the jury to' Belive it because i said so" somethinhg close to that. She may have pissed them off with that disrespect. imo
Thats true. Nicole told kato that her ultimate objective was to remarry oj.
Nicole said that a year to a year and a half before the murders. She didn't feel that way at the time she was murdered.
Throughout the trial clarke thought she had the jury eating out of her hand.
She had no answers for many things.The jury was listening more closely than what she thought. in her closing she told the jury to' Belive it because i said so" somethinhg close to that. She may have pissed them off with that disresperct. imo
Can you tell me at what point in her closing she said this? I tried to find it but haven't had any luck.
The prosecution with all the detectives could not come up with a explination as to how the glove got there tells me that no one dropped it there but someone could have tossed it there from the gate without walking into the walkway. imo
The prosecution and the detectives had an explanation -- it was dropped by OJ Simpson returning to his estate after killing Ron and Nicole.
yes it is.
It also describes the conflict in mf story of what time he got home that night and what his wife called Geraldo and said.
Mark Fuhrman's personal life and what time he got home that night has zero to do with the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
ain't that the truth -- oh wait, isn't that about the size of his new home?
I don't believe anyone honestly believes you can get a mortgage when you have had one home go into foreclosure for non-payment, owe the IRS for unpaid taxes, AND a $33m civil judgement. . . .:eek:
Yep, except his is a little more secure than a cardboard box. At least he doesn't have to worry about whether or not his security alarm is set these days. ;)
Apparently, somehow he got a mortgage. I don't get it either...:shrug:
well, it wouldn't be the first time he used the 'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes' defense/excuse! :eek:
He had such good luck with it in the criminal trial -- he's waiting for it to work for him again. Hmm...looks like his charm has worn thin since the first trial. :)
martin II
10-26-2009, 12:21 AM
Yep, except his is a little more secure than a cardboard box. At least he doesn't have to worry about whether or not his security alarm is set these days. ;)
Apparently, somehow he got a mortgage. I don't get it either...:shrug:
OJS monthly income must have given him A high rating for his mortage. That bank gave thousands of people mortages with low income so they could make high broker fees. with $25,000 a month income that was not a problem for oj. freds judgement would not have been a issue which is why i believe the link posted was not true. just more gossip imo :cool:
martin II
10-26-2009, 12:23 AM
He had such good luck with it in the criminal trial -- he's waiting for it to work for him again. Hmm...looks like his charm has worn thin since the first trial. :)
did oj say this or is this more gossip.
'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes'
martin II
10-26-2009, 12:41 AM
He had such good luck with it in the criminal trial -- he's waiting for it to work for him again. Hmm...looks like his charm has worn thin since the first trial. :)
I think the justice system had the good luck in the criminal trial. We can thank the dream team for that.
TV,
I agree with you statement, however, I would like to add, I think it would be difficult for any person to adjust to prison. However, there are people, such as Richard Speck and Charles Manson who don't mind jail, it was the where they grew up and they have all the perks in the inside that they had on the outside.
I can't imagine what it would be like and I think if it happened to me, that I somehow ended up in jail for the rest of my life, I might be looking to punch my own ticket. Of course, that goes against my faith but again, I can't imagine anything worse then spending the rest of my life in prision.
I don't think Richard Speck has any perks -- he's dead. He did say that if they knew how much fun he was having they'd let him go. Charles Manson has been in solitary for the last 40 years so he probably doesn't have access to drugs. I don't know what other perks you mean.
Not everyone hates prison but I'd say most of them do. I think if OJ Simpson can attain a celebrity status in jail and have a audience to reflect his image he'll be okay.
did oj say this or is this more gossip.
'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes'
I don't know -- I'm not the person that posted it. I have to say that even if he's hasn't used those exact words he's said it many times.
OJS monthly income must have given him A high rating for his mortage. That bank gave thousands of people mortages with low income so they could make high broker fees. with $25,000 a month income that was not a problem for oj. freds judgement would not have been a issue which is why i believe the link posted was not true. just more gossip imo :cool:
Your income doesn't have anything to do with your credit rating. Judgements do show up on your credit and credit is important when you're taking out a mortgage.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 06:19 AM
Can you tell me at what point in her closing she said this? I tried to find it but haven't had any luck.
TV,
Martin is correct, Clark basically did try to make that argument, "trust me". I believe it is called personal vouching for the evidence. She was warned by Judge Ito about this. I think it happened a few times and I think one of the warnings was if she did it again, she would face sanctions.
However, I don't really think she had a choice to do this. She already conceded that MF was a liar and never said that he did not plant the glove. She basically said the other 3 detectives weren't the brightest bulbs in the lights and the SID weren't the ripest tomatos on the vine.
Remember when she tried to say why she was a DA? That she tried to be a defense attorney and couldn't handle it? She was stopped by the judge but she try to make that point.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 06:25 AM
I don't think Richard Speck has any perks -- he's dead. He did say that if they knew how much fun he was having they'd let him go. Charles Manson has been in solitary for the last 40 years so he probably doesn't have access to drugs. I don't know what other perks you mean.
Not everyone hates prison but I'd say most of them do. I think if OJ Simpson can attain a celebrity status in jail and have a audience to reflect his image he'll be okay.
TV,
I know Richard Speck is dead. I remember seeing a video of him with I think two other inmates and it was pretty clear that he had access to female hormones because he had breasts and they looked nothing like men's.
Manson gave an interview about how he had all the drugs and sex he wanted in prison. I think it is fair to say that contraband is no stranger in prison. I have always found it interesting how there can be drug rings inside a prison. I am sure not every guard is an "Untouchable".
I think it may be possible that guards might turn their heads if they know the drugs the person is getting is keeping them in line and they are not afraid of the inmate. Every time I look at Manson, he still gives me the creeps, if I was his guard, I probably would have stoned to the gills just so I wouldn't have to worry about him hurting me or listen to him talk. Again, that is just me.
For some prisoners, "3 Hots and a Cot" is the probably the first luxury they ever had compared to what they had at home. Again, IMO.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 06:40 AM
I think the justice system had the good luck in the criminal trial. We can thank the dream team for that.
Martin,
IMO, the Simpson trial was probably the first time America was able to see how our justice system at its best---Simpson was able to level the playing field. He was able to challenged every piece of evidence.
IMO, I think his wealth pissed off more people then anything else. We all know DA's hate to be challenged and never accept responsbility for any thing. Again, IMO.
Kayleighjo
10-26-2009, 08:44 AM
Martin,
I forgot to add, there was simply no motive. He had no reason to kill her and despite what has been "reported", I still think Simpsons believe they could get the other back any time they wanted. Again, IMO.
There are tons of people filling up our jails that had far less motive than Simpson to kill someone, but they did it. In Simpson's case, his rage took over when he realized that no amount of bullying was bringing her back this time around.
Kayleighjo
10-26-2009, 08:45 AM
Martin,
IMO, the Simpson trial was probably the first time America was able to see how our justice system at its best---Simpson was able to level the playing field. He was able to challenged every piece of evidence.
IMO, I think his wealth pissed off more people then anything else. We all know DA's hate to be challenged and never accept responsbility for any thing. Again, IMO.
I think Simpson would have been a perfect DA then.
I think people were more pissed at the idea that wealth and fame override justice.
martin II
10-26-2009, 09:27 AM
TV,
I know Richard Speck is dead. I remember seeing a video of him with I think two other inmates and it was pretty clear that he had access to female hormones because he had breasts and they looked nothing like men's.
Manson gave an interview about how he had all the drugs and sex he wanted in prison. I think it is fair to say that contraband is no stranger in prison. I have always found it interesting how there can be drug rings inside a prison. I am sure not every guard is an "Untouchable".
I think it may be possible that guards might turn their heads if they know the drugs the person is getting is keeping them in line and they are not afraid of the inmate. Every time I look at Manson, he still gives me the creeps, if I was his guard, I probably would have stoned to the gills just so I wouldn't have to worry about him hurting me or listen to him talk. Again, that is just me.
For some prisoners, "3 Hots and a Cot" is the probably the first luxury they ever had compared to what they had at home. Again, IMO.
some guards allow drugs into prisons and some guards sell drugs to prisoners. that is for sure.For sure gangs sell drugs in prisons.imo
martin II
10-26-2009, 09:41 AM
Your income doesn't have anything to do with your credit rating. Judgements do show up on your credit and credit is important when you're taking out a mortgage.
My point is the mortage company will give a mortage if one can prove that one have income not available to any creditor. Ojs retirement monthly income proved that. His monthly mortage did not come any place near to his income.
I am sure his situation was not unique to florida mortage companies and that he was approved before he moved from brentwood.
freds judgement on ojs credit report meant nothing. imo
martin II
10-26-2009, 09:56 AM
My point has been that many of the majority that thought oj was guilty were pissed because they did not get the verdict they as the majority thought they were entitled to get.The majority seem to always believe they are correct and the minority is wrong. imo
When we vote for politicians the one with the majority wins. A criminal trial verdict is no place close to being the same but some may have been spoiled into thinking it is. imo
martin II
10-26-2009, 10:01 AM
Martin,
IMO, the Simpson trial was probably the first time America was able to see how our justice system at its best---Simpson was able to level the playing field. He was able to challenged every piece of evidence.
IMO, I think his wealth pissed off more people then anything else. We all know DA's hate to be challenged and never accept responsbility for any thing. Again, IMO.
The la da has a conviction rate of 98%. no way can i believe that 98% of the people charged were guilty. I can believe some had poor defense. imo
TV,
Martin is correct, Clark basically did try to make that argument, "trust me". I believe it is called personal vouching for the evidence. She was warned by Judge Ito about this. I think it happened a few times and I think one of the warnings was if she did it again, she would face sanctions.
However, I don't really think she had a choice to do this. She already conceded that MF was a liar and never said that he did not plant the glove. She basically said the other 3 detectives weren't the brightest bulbs in the lights and the SID weren't the ripest tomatos on the vine.
Remember when she tried to say why she was a DA? That she tried to be a defense attorney and couldn't handle it? She was stopped by the judge but she try to make that point.
I read the part where she said she used to be a defense attorney. I don't recall her saying she couldn't handle it but maybe I missed that part. In her closing she clearly says he didn't plant it. You are wrong about her not saying he didn't plant the glove. In her't plant it. I didn't see anything about the detectives being stupid either. I tried to find the statement you and martin are referring to and haven't be able to find it. I'm not saying it isn't there but I can't find it.
TV,
I know Richard Speck is dead. I remember seeing a video of him with I think two other inmates and it was pretty clear that he had access to female hormones because he had breasts and they looked nothing like men's.
Manson gave an interview about how he had all the drugs and sex he wanted in prison. I think it is fair to say that contraband is no stranger in prison. I have always found it interesting how there can be drug rings inside a prison. I am sure not every guard is an "Untouchable".
I think it may be possible that guards might turn their heads if they know the drugs the person is getting is keeping them in line and they are not afraid of the inmate. Every time I look at Manson, he still gives me the creeps, if I was his guard, I probably would have stoned to the gills just so I wouldn't have to worry about him hurting me or listen to him talk. Again, that is just me.
For some prisoners, "3 Hots and a Cot" is the probably the first luxury they ever had compared to what they had at home. Again, IMO.
I know what went on with Richard Speck in prision. There was a lot of corruption at that prison. While prisoners do have access to drugs, alcohol etc. I do think Richard Speck's situation went above and beyond the norm.
As for guards allowing prisioners to be stoned just to deal with them is something I've never heard before. I think a stoned irrational prisoner would be extremely dangerous. Manson is in solitary. I don't think anyone has to listen to him talk all day long. I could be wrong.
My point has been that many of the majority that thought oj was guilty were pissed because they did not get the verdict they as the majority thought they were entitled to get.The majority seem to always believe they are correct and the minority is wrong. imo
When we vote for politicians the one with the majority wins. A criminal trial verdict is no place close to being the same but some may have been spoiled into thinking it is. imo
Of course the majority has to rule. Do you have a better plan?
Martin,
IMO, the Simpson trial was probably the first time America was able to see how our justice system at its best---Simpson was able to level the playing field. He was able to challenged every piece of evidence.
IMO, I think his wealth pissed off more people then anything else. We all know DA's hate to be challenged and never accept responsbility for any thing. Again, IMO.
DAs hate to be challenged and never accept responsibility for anything? Do you have statistics on this? No one is mad because OJ Simpson is wealthy -- it's the American way to work hard and be rewarded. This was the criminal justice system at it's worse -- a defense willing to lie, fabricate and ruin lives and a jury eager to turn the tables regarding the Rodney King verdict.
martin II
10-26-2009, 10:16 AM
tv
if mortage compamies were giving mortasges to people that they knew lied about income and a person like oj had proof of a large income not affected by creditors. They would not let him out the door without a signed mortage.
The issue is really mute because he got the mortage.Since we don't have his contract the issue is just more gossip.imo
martin II
10-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Of course the majority has to rule. Do you have a better plan?
ok
so what is your problem with the majority of jurors voting not guilty. oh i know, you did not get the verdict you thought you were entitled to get.
martin II
10-26-2009, 10:24 AM
DAs hate to be challenged and never accept responsibility for anything? Do you have statistics on this? No one is mad because OJ Simpson is wealthy -- it's the American way to work hard and be rewarded. This was the criminal justice system at it's worse -- a defense willing to lie, fabricate and ruin lives and a jury eager to turn the tables regarding the Rodney King verdict.
There are many cases of da misconduct to get convictions. not any or not many were ever punished for this.
martin II
10-26-2009, 10:29 AM
DAs hate to be challenged and never accept responsibility for anything? Do you have statistics on this? No one is mad because OJ Simpson is wealthy -- it's the American way to work hard and be rewarded. This was the criminal justice system at it's worse -- a defense willing to lie, fabricate and ruin lives and a jury eager to turn the tables regarding the Rodney King verdict.
i just don't think you for some reason understand what happened in the court room during the trial.
There are tons of people filling up our jails that had far less motive than Simpson to kill someone, but they did it. In Simpson's case, his rage took over when he realized that no amount of bullying was bringing her back this time around.:beer::beer:
There are many cases of da misconduct to get convictions. not any or not many were ever punished for this.
What about Nifong who lied to get the Duke guys tried and convicted? You know the case where the Revs Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson made a stand about it and never apologized? Nifong was fired, disbarred and faced ethics charges. The young men decided to sue him in civil court also.
i just don't think you for some reason understand what happened in the court room during the trial.
Whatever you need to tell yourself...:D
ok
so what is your problem with the majority of jurors voting not guilty. oh i know, you did not get the verdict you thought you were entitled to get.
I'm not in the mood for your rudeness today. I wasn't entitled to any verdict. Get over yourself.
I think Simpson would have been a perfect DA then.
I think people were more pissed at the idea that wealth and fame override justice.
Exactly, Kayleighjo.
tv
if mortage compamies were giving mortasges to people that they knew lied about income and a person like oj had proof of a large income not affected by creditors. They would not let him out the door without a signed mortage.
The issue is really mute because he got the mortage.Since we don't have his contract the issue is just more gossip.imo
You're right -- it's moot. That's why I dropped this subject last night.
Kayleighjo
10-26-2009, 11:09 AM
My point has been that many of the majority that thought oj was guilty were pissed because they did not get the verdict they as the majority thought they were entitled to get.The majority seem to always believe they are correct and the minority is wrong. imo
When we vote for politicians the one with the majority wins. A criminal trial verdict is no place close to being the same but some may have been spoiled into thinking it is. imo
When we vote for President the one that wins isn't necessarily the one with the most individual votes, only electoral.
By the way, those of us that were pissed weren't pissed because "we" didn't get the verdict "we" thought "we" were entitled to get, we were pissed because the verdict wasn't the one that Ron and Nicole were entitled to get.
Kayleighjo
10-26-2009, 11:17 AM
tv
What i got from the Amish article is that they realized that carrying hatred in a way is a burden for the hater and does damage to them not the person being hated.
Discussing the pros and cons of freds actions is not bashing him. A discussion/debate is based on different views opinions being discussed. That is how i see it.imo
One can forgive but not forget. But to actively take actions to support hate against another is what is harmful.imo
Harmful to who in this case? Simpson? I hope so.
I'd hate anyone that killed one of my kids unless they were killed as the result of an accident. But if someone brutally murdered one of them? I'd hate forever.
When we vote for President the one that wins isn't necessarily the one with the most individual votes, only electoral.
By the way, those of us that were pissed weren't pissed because "we" didn't get the verdict "we" thought "we" were entitled to get, we were pissed because the verdict wasn't the one that Ron and Nicole were entitled to get.
I don't know about you but in reading between the lines I think martin is trying to say something that he knows isn't permitted. I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
Kayleighjo
10-26-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't know about you but in reading between the lines I think martin is trying to say something that he knows isn't permitted. I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I hear you and I doubt you're wrong.
rovaan
10-26-2009, 12:37 PM
My point is the mortage company will give a mortage if one can prove that one have income not available to any creditor. Ojs retirement monthly income proved that. His monthly mortage did not come any place near to his income.
I am sure his situation was not unique to florida mortage companies and that he was approved before he moved from brentwood.
freds judgement on ojs credit report meant nothing. imo
It appears that OJ got a second mortgage by saying he did not commit the murders. Sometimes it is just amazing how the news seems to tie into topics on this board.
http://clipmarks.forbes.com/2009/10/26/wamus-mortgage-to-oj-simpson/
Hotwater
10-26-2009, 01:40 PM
Posted by Martin - My point has been that many of the majority that thought oj was guilty were pissed because they did not get the verdict they as the majority thought they were entitled to get.
I don't want to see this kind of wording again, period.
HW
weezer
10-26-2009, 01:45 PM
Harmful to who in this case? Simpson? I hope so.
I'd hate anyone that killed one of my kids unless they were killed as the result of an accident. But if someone brutally murdered one of them? I'd hate forever.
I'm starting to feel sorry for the NG's -- they're sounding confused: the NG's hate Fuhrman and LE for something that didn't even happen to them -- BUT -- Mr. Goldman shouldn't hate the man who butchered his son. . . .:shrug:
weezer
10-26-2009, 01:51 PM
It appears that OJ got a second mortgage by saying he did not commit the murders. Sometimes it is just amazing how the news seems to tie into topics on this board.
http://clipmarks.forbes.com/2009/10/26/wamus-mortgage-to-oj-simpson/
funny how that works. sure would like to see how orenthal got that mortgage and who exactly signed on the dotted line. not that it makes any difference unless the house isn't in orenthal's name. :eek:
martin II
10-26-2009, 01:52 PM
I don't know about you but in reading between the lines I think martin is trying to say something that he knows isn't permitted. I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
tv
you do have a habit on reading verry nergative into my post.
martin II
10-26-2009, 01:56 PM
here we go again.
I Think there was a post showing a check paid to the bank mortage company
for ojs account. i assume that was paid for ojs house mortage.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:18 PM
What about Nifong who lied to get the Duke guys tried and convicted? You know the case where the Revs Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson made a stand about it and never apologized? Nifong was fired, disbarred and faced ethics charges. The young men decided to sue him in civil court also.
What does the fact that the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, who allegedly never apologized for their stand, have to do with the punishment doled out to District Attorneys, who act unethically or corruptly, since neither, to my knowledge were ever District Attorneys and certainly not in the Duke players case, or, if when you read between the lines, is something else being said?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:24 PM
When we vote for President the one that wins isn't necessarily the one with the most individual votes, only electoral.
By the way, those of us that were pissed weren't pissed because "we" didn't get the verdict "we" thought "we" were entitled to get, we were pissed because the verdict wasn't the one that Ron and Nicole were entitled to get.
The Presidential candidate, who wins, is the one with the majority of the electoral votes. The majority popular vote, which does not matter in deciding the Presidential election is like the majority opinions in the court of public opinion, which the only verdict that mattered as to Simpson's guilt or non guilt was the one rendered by the criminal jury in the double murder trial, IMHO. Good to see you posting, again.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:29 PM
I think Simpson would have been a perfect DA then.
I think people were more pissed at the idea that wealth and fame override justice.
Do you think this was a recent phenomena of outrage or have their been other cases in history were wealth, fame and privilege overrode justice and there was an equal amount of long lasting outraged expressed?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:34 PM
Mark Fuhrman's personal life and what time he got home that night has zero to do with the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
I don't see this as a look into MF's personal life, so much as I do a search for the truth.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:38 PM
He killed Ron and Nicole -- he owes the plaintiffs the money. He should have attempted to make some kind of payment.
There has been no finding, save in the court of public opinion, that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. There has been a finding that Simpson is liable for Ron's wrongful death and that Simpson committed battery and oppression on Nicole, which is only a tort and not a crime.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:42 PM
My Pastor is forever warning us against the one verse Charlie. You Must study the Bible as a whole. Just saying. FWIW
Does this mean trying to find the meaning in the parts which causes one the most disagreement or concern when first read?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:44 PM
I was commenting on what you said about religious teachings being too strict for you. Since you'd been commenting on your personal beliefs I figured you were okay with talking about them. I already told you that the Lord's vengeance will be what it is but we have to have man's laws in order to live in a civilized society. In other words, God will take his vengence but we have to impose laws to live by here on earth.
Which would be perfect and why so much outrage at something that at best can only be imperfect?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:45 PM
I have to agree with this. If a person murdered two people then it would be little beans for them to ignore a legal judgement. Makes perfect sense to me.
Many, who have never committed or been charged with murder, ignore civil judgments, IMHO.
Many, who have never committed or been charged with murder, ignore civil judgments, IMHO.
We're not discussing "many".
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 02:52 PM
William
Are you here? i have a question.
I am back now.
What does the fact that the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, who allegedly never apologized for their stand, have to do with the punishment doled out to District Attorneys, who act unethically or corruptly, since neither, to my knowledge were ever District Attorneys and certainly not in the Duke players case, or, if when you read between the lines, is something else being said?
I guess it was just a good excuse for me to jab the esteemed reverends because I think they should have acknowledged their mistake. Please feel free to ignore the comment.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 03:06 PM
I guess it was just a good excuse for me to jab the esteemed reverends because I think they should have acknowledged their mistake. Please feel free to ignore the comment.
I understand and will ignore the comment, as there have been quite a few wrongly convicted based on prosecutor misconduct, which many of those prosecutors never apologized and would have made better examples for your statement, IMHO.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 03:09 PM
We're not discussing "many".
I just thought that the conversation should not be limited to Simpson and his ability to take advantage of legal loopholes to avoid a judgment in order to say that he is a double murderer, unless the same is applied to others, who advantageously used legal loopholes to avoid paying judgments.
I just thought that the conversation should not be limited to Simpson and his ability to take advantage of legal loopholes to avoid a judgment in order to say that he is a double murderer, unless the same is applied to others, who advantageously used legal loopholes to avoid paying judgments.
Moving to Florida was a legal loophole and I don't fault him for that. But, making money (slasher conventions and the like) and hiding it from Fred Goldman and the other plaintiffs in the civil suit is playing dirty.
I understand and will ignore the comment, as there have been quite a few wrongly convicted based on prosecutor misconduct, which many of those prosecutors never apologized and would have made better examples for your statement, IMHO.
How was I able to carry on unguided while you were absent from the board? It frightens me to think about it. :tongue:
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 03:37 PM
Moving to Florida was a legal loophole and I don't fault him for that. But, making money (slasher conventions and the like) and hiding it from Fred Goldman and the other plaintiffs in the civil suit is playing dirty.
Then we should expand it to include others, who use loopholes not just legal ones, to avoid paying judgments. The law looked to this peculiarity by taking a precaution to have a writ to enforce a judgment. Is it playing clean for companies to file bankruptcy and to open under a new name?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 03:40 PM
How was I able to carry on unguided while you were absent from the board? It frightens me to think about it. :tongue:
I wasn't trying to guide you but I was trying to understand your point and you honestly admitted it was done because you could not avoid the temptation to take jabs at the "esteemed Reverends" and civil rights activist and leaders, Jackson and Sharpton. I understand now and will ignore the comment. :)
weezer
10-26-2009, 04:11 PM
The Presidential candidate, who wins, is the one with the majority of the electoral votes. The majority popular vote, which does not matter in deciding the Presidential election is like the majority opinions in the court of public opinion, which the only verdict that mattered as to Simpson's guilt or non guilt was the one rendered by the criminal jury in the double murder trial, IMHO. Good to see you posting, again.
don't tell the liberals and dems that they weren't suppose to be criticizing and whining the last eight years! ;):biggrin::eek:
Then we should expand it to include others, who use loopholes not just legal ones, to avoid paying judgments. The law looked to this peculiarity by taking a precaution to have a writ to enforce a judgment. Is it playing clean for companies to file bankruptcy and to open under a new name?
Legal doesn't always equal clean.
I wasn't trying to guide you but I was trying to understand your point and you honestly admitted it was done because you could not avoid the temptation to take jabs at the "esteemed Reverends" and civil rights activist and leaders, Jackson and Sharpton. I understand now and will ignore the comment. :)
It wasn't long ago that you said you didn't care for the Rev. Jackson but you're entitled to change your mind. I actually like the Rev. Sharpton when he's not being political and he does a pretty mean moonwalk. That building that burned down though...not good. I'm glad you understand -- some things are just irresistable.
weezer
10-26-2009, 04:23 PM
Then we should expand it to include others, who use loopholes not just legal ones, to avoid paying judgments. The law looked to this peculiarity by taking a precaution to have a writ to enforce a judgment. Is it playing clean for companies to file bankruptcy and to open under a new name?
I don't think it serves any purpose to discuss what other people and/or companies do to avoid paying judgments. This is the simpson board and the point being discussed is orenthal's failure to pay the civil judgment.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 05:15 PM
don't tell the liberals and dems that they weren't suppose to be criticizing and whining the last eight years! ;):biggrin::eek:
Ah, but in America you have the right to voice your opinion whether you vote in a particular process or not, as evidenced by the posts on this message board. :);):cool:
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 05:19 PM
Legal doesn't always equal clean.
It was you that used the term '"playing dirty" and you also said that you have no argument with Simpson using the Florida laws to avoid paying the judgment. If that is the case, then what did you mean by using the term playing dirty, if not illegal ways to avoid payment?
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 05:28 PM
I don't think it serves any purpose to discuss what other people and/or companies do to avoid paying judgments. This is the simpson board and the point being discussed is orenthal's failure to pay the civil judgment.
I understand that you don't think it serves any purpose to discuss what others do in regard to Simpson, unless it is brought up in some sense with which you agree, as with the recent posts on other cases and MF's involvement in them or the desire to have him involved or the chance to take jabs at others not involved in the Simpson case or the reference to a District Attorney, who was not involved in the case. On the other hand, I see these thing as a natural and tangential discussion of issues that are related to the case (perhaps, that should be a new thread). In any event there have been many discussions that I thought served no purpose but that did not stop those, who wanted to discuss them. The idea is that the thought is it is disgusting that Simpson would try to avoid paying the judgment or should it be disgusting that Simpson would try to avoid paying the judgment and, as such, IMHO, it allows for a discussion of whether others, who use such methods, are equally disgusting or whether the fact that they use such methods is indicative of the fact that they are double murders and, therefore, find it reasonable to use such methods. :)
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 05:40 PM
It wasn't long ago that you said you didn't care for the Rev. Jackson but you're entitled to change your mind. I actually like the Rev. Sharpton when he's not being political and he does a pretty mean moonwalk. That building that burned down though...not good. I'm glad you understand -- some things are just irresistable.
You are quite correct as the Reverend Jackson is not one of my favorite people. That does not mean that I want to see people unnecessarily take negative jabs at him or anyone else. I think I do understand why people find some things irresistible and why the irresistibly differs from person to person/people to people, depending on their life experiences.
William Anthony
10-26-2009, 05:49 PM
I don't think it serves any purpose to discuss what other people and/or companies do to avoid paying judgments. This is the simpson board and the point being discussed is orenthal's failure to pay the civil judgment.
Let us take it to be true that Indians acted violently when give fire water. It becomes easy to see why others should know of this and not give Indians fire water. Let us consider that Simpson was not the first to use methods to avoid paying a judgment. It then becomes easy to see how he learned of such methods and why he would choose to use them and why the courts would look to discover his conduct.
Let us take it to be true that Indians acted violently when give fire water. It becomes easy to see why others should know of this and not give Indians fire water. Let us consider that Simpson was not the first to use methods to avoid paying a judgment. It then becomes easy to see how he learned of such methods and why he would choose to use them and why the courts would look to discover his conduct.
:eek:
It was you that used the term '"playing dirty" and you also said that you have no argument with Simpson using the Florida laws to avoid paying the judgment. If that is the case, then what did you mean by using the term playing dirty, if not illegal ways to avoid payment?
To clarify -- OJ Simpson played dirty when he used illegal ways to avoid payment and hide his money.
weezer
10-26-2009, 07:50 PM
To clarify -- OJ Simpson played dirty when he used illegal ways to avoid payment and hide his money.
I was raised to believe that a man is as good as what he stands for -- and sometimes there are those who just don't have enough character to be a man.
I was raised to believe that a man is as good as what he stands for -- and sometimes there are those who just don't have enough character to be a man.
I couldn't agree more. :)
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 08:25 PM
The la da has a conviction rate of 98%. no way can i believe that 98% of the people charged were guilty. I can believe some had poor defense. imo
Martin,
I agree, I think if defendants had access to more testing and be able to challenged the evidence more, the conviction rate would not be as high. I think it would be still be high but not as high.
However, the only way this could be paid for would most likey be taxes and I don't know how I feel about a tax hike to pay for this. Again, just IMO.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 08:29 PM
To clarify -- OJ Simpson played dirty when he used illegal ways to avoid payment and hide his money.
TV,
OJ Simpson did not play dirty. He used laws all ready in place and used them to his advantage. The fact that Goldmans' lawyers were able to challenged them and have them turned over to them were also legal acts. However, it will be interesting to see if and when this happens again how this will play out.
And it is totally unfair to hold Simpson accounting for hiding money when this is done by many, many people, especially in divorce cases. Do you think all these famous and men and women are truthful regarding their assets?
If you hate Simpson for hiding his asset, then you have to hate all people who do this. IMO.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 08:34 PM
I think people were more pissed at the idea that wealth and fame override justice.
Since that didn't happen, I don't think that is why people are mad.
weezer
10-26-2009, 08:35 PM
I couldn't agree more. :)
wonder how the folks who think orenthal is okay not to pay the judgment would feel if that was done to the 'causes' they support.
TV,
OJ Simpson did not play dirty. He used laws all ready in place and used them to his advantage. The fact that Goldmans' lawyers were able to challenged them and have them turned over to them were also legal acts. However, it will be interesting to see if and when this happens again how this will play out.
And it is totally unfair to hold Simpson accounting for hiding money when this is done by many, many people, especially in divorce cases. Do you think all these famous and men and women are truthful regarding their assets?
If you hate Simpson for hiding his asset, then you have to hate all people who do this. IMO.
We're not discussing many, many people and just because they do wrong doesn't make it right for OJ Simpson to do it. LBA was a sham company to allow him to get paid for writing the peice of trash and not have to share with with the plaintiffs in the civil action. That was wrong.
I'll say it for the tenth time -- I don't hate Simpson; I don't hate anyone. I do have more disdain for him than someone who hides assets to avoid paying up due to divorce. He killed two human beings.
wonder how the folks who think orenthal is okay not to pay the judgment would feel if that was done to the 'causes' they support.
Something tells me they wouldn't like it at all. ;)
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 08:51 PM
I read the part where she said she used to be a defense attorney. I don't recall her saying she couldn't handle it but maybe I missed that part. In her closing she clearly says he didn't plant it. You are wrong about her not saying he didn't plant the glove. In her't plant it. I didn't see anything about the detectives being stupid either. I tried to find the statement you and martin are referring to and haven't be able to find it. I'm not saying it isn't there but I can't find it.
TV,
After she shredded MF infront of the jury, saying that we didn't want this type of person on our planet, she never said that he did not plant the glove, only that just because he was a racist and lied about it on the stand doesn't mean they didn't prove their case.
About being a defense attorney, she was trying to say that she couldn't represent people knowing they were guilty---which is clearly vouching. Her basically saying "trust me, trust me when I tell you that you can trust the evidence" is saying that the detectives and the SID were not the brightest people. She had no choice, she had to give an explaination on why so many "mistakes" were made. Like she said in her book, she found it laughable the defense accused them of being involved in this huge conspiracy (which is not true, they never said it was a huge conspiracy) because the detectives couldn't even organize a beer run.
What else did she have to explain Fung, Mozzola and how could she combat Vanatter's comment, "He was no more of a suspect then you were, Mr. Shapiro!"
She had a lot of material to work with to make this case, as in the dim bulb defense of her evidence.
TV,
After she shredded MF infront of the jury, saying that we didn't want this type of person on our planet, she never said that he did not plant the glove, only that just because he was a racist and lied about it on the stand doesn't mean they didn't prove their case.
About being a defense attorney, she was trying to say that she couldn't represent people knowing they were guilty---which is clearly vouching. Her basically saying "trust me, trust me when I tell you that you can trust the evidence" is saying that the detectives and the SID were not the brightest people. She had no choice, she had to give an explaination on why so many "mistakes" were made. Like she said in her book, she found it laughable the defense accused them of being involved in this huge conspiracy (which is not true, they never said it was a huge conspiracy) because the detectives couldn't even organize a beer run.
What else did she have to explain Fung, Mozzola and how could she combat Vanatter's comment, "He was no more of a suspect then you were, Mr. Shapiro!"
She had a lot of material to work with to make this case, as in the dim bulb defense of her evidence.
That's not the same as saying to the jury that they should believe her because she said so. You are wrong -- she did say Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the glove and the defense did say there was a big conspiracy.
Since that didn't happen, I don't think that is why people are mad.
It happened.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 09:50 PM
That's not the same as saying to the jury that they should believe her because she said so. You are wrong -- she did say Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the glove and the defense did say there was a big conspiracy.
TV,
She was called out for vouching for the evidence. That is saying believe me because I said so. The defense never said it was a big conspiracy. It was clear the defense focused on two detectives. However, on one key issue, the defense did say that those who claimed they did not know about this detective were not being honest, since this person never made any attempt to hide from the public he served. As you know, the defense was corrected on this issue and all claims by the detectives they knew nothing about MF and the tapes were not telling the truth.
Which time during her closing did she say that MF did not plant the glove? Was it her first time or the last time she spoke to the jury in the closing arguements?
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 09:54 PM
It happened.
TV,
He leveled the playing field. He did not pay for the LAPD's testimony, he did not pay for Fung and Mozzola's testimony. He had no control on the photographer and he did pay Kato for his testimony any more then he paid Park or the demeanor witnesses.
Please provide links to your position because I don't see it. Also remember, the state always, always have more money then any defendant. The DA's had an army working on this case and they had a lot more money then the defense.
IMO, if you say the defendant can buy a verdict, then you must agree that the state can just as easily do this---since they have more money then any defendant.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 10:30 PM
Something tells me they wouldn't like it at all. ;)
TV,
I think I have been pretty clear, as others have been, none of us would willingly pay for a crime we did not committ and I don't think any of us would break our backs to pay off a debt that we do not owe.
I may be wrong but from your strength and your passion, I can't imagine any one forcing you to pay for a crime you didn't commit in a civil trial. Also, I think it would be natural for any one who finds themselves in this position to work very hard to protect any assets they have earned, especially if these assets would eventually go to the children.
While we are competely at odds over this case, it does not mean that we don't have the same passion and conviction of our beliefs. Kind of scarey when you look at it that way---isn't it? My sister used to get so mad when I would say she was just like our mom, until I explained it to her. While positions may be different, the passion and the conviction were at the same level. I hope that makes sense and I mean no offense in comparing you to me. I hope you don't take it that way.
GreenIce
10-26-2009, 10:43 PM
We're not discussing many, many people and just because they do wrong doesn't make it right for OJ Simpson to do it. LBA was a sham company to allow him to get paid for writing the peice of trash and not have to share with with the plaintiffs in the civil action. That was wrong.
I'll say it for the tenth time -- I don't hate Simpson; I don't hate anyone. I do have more disdain for him than someone who hides assets to avoid paying up due to divorce. He killed two human beings.
TV,
I have to disagree with you. IMO, others who have done this before Simpson were allowed to do so because it was a legal act. What makes it wrong illegal or wrong just because it is Simpson?
Sham companies and ways to beat taxes, etc., have been on the books for years and years. If it is wrong or illegal for Simpson to have done this, then it should have been wrong for all the times in the past and in the future.
IMO, the villian here are not the Simpsons. The villians are the people who thought they would make millions off of a book and later try to justify their actions by saying they were doing it for Ron and Nicole. That they were speaking for the victims. They should have said what it was, they wanted to make money off of a book and if meant promising Simpson so much money that would not go to the judgement or to delay revealing the facts of the contract until after he got paid, so be it.
My only problem with Regan and the Goldmans' is their change on why they wanted the book published. I think in one of the links provided, one of the Goldmans said, I think it was Fred, something about if one woman was helped because of the DV discussion in the book, then it would be worth it. IMO, while I have always stood up for them on what they were trying to accomplish, I did take a double take on this statement and I do find it to be a very two faced statement on the Goldmans' part. I also find the comments their lawyer made about the Browns to be in poor taste and never should have been said. But, to each his own.
I have no problems with the Goldmans stance on this issue, I do have a problem when they try to be advocates for an issue they made clear they wanted nothing to do with. Again, IMO.
TV,
He leveled the playing field. He did not pay for the LAPD's testimony, he did not pay for Fung and Mozzola's testimony. He had no control on the photographer and he did pay Kato for his testimony any more then he paid Park or the demeanor witnesses.
Please provide links to your position because I don't see it. Also remember, the state always, always have more money then any defendant. The DA's had an army working on this case and they had a lot more money then the defense.
IMO, if you say the defendant can buy a verdict, then you must agree that the state can just as easily do this---since they have more money then any defendant.
Please direct me to the post where I said OJ Simpson bought his verdict.
TV,
I have to disagree with you. IMO, others who have done this before Simpson were allowed to do so because it was a legal act. What makes it wrong illegal or wrong just because it is Simpson?
Sham companies and ways to beat taxes, etc., have been on the books for years and years. If it is wrong or illegal for Simpson to have done this, then it should have been wrong for all the times in the past and in the future.
IMO, the villian here are not the Simpsons. The villians are the people who thought they would make millions off of a book and later try to justify their actions by saying they were doing it for Ron and Nicole. That they were speaking for the victims. They should have said what it was, they wanted to make money off of a book and if meant promising Simpson so much money that would not go to the judgement or to delay revealing the facts of the contract until after he got paid, so be it.
My only problem with Regan and the Goldmans' is their change on why they wanted the book published. I think in one of the links provided, one of the Goldmans said, I think it was Fred, something about if one woman was helped because of the DV discussion in the book, then it would be worth it. IMO, while I have always stood up for them on what they were trying to accomplish, I did take a double take on this statement and I do find it to be a very two faced statement on the Goldmans' part. I also find the comments their lawyer made about the Browns to be in poor taste and never should have been said. But, to each his own.
I have no problems with the Goldmans stance on this issue, I do have a problem when they try to be advocates for an issue they made clear they wanted nothing to do with. Again, IMO.
You know, in the last few days I wondered where our real GreenIce has been but I see it's you after all. Now Mr. Goldman is two-faced... do any of these other 'villians' have names?
Do you really believe that people are never punished for or forced to desolve sham coporations? A legal determination was made that Lorraine Brooke Associates was set up to as a sham for the sole purpose of allowing OJ Simpson to make money from the piece of trash book. It was wrong. For purposes of this forum, it doesn't matter who has done it, legally or illegally. We're talking about OJ Simpson.
TV,
I think I have been pretty clear, as others have been, none of us would willingly pay for a crime we did not committ and I don't think any of us would break our backs to pay off a debt that we do not owe.
I may be wrong but from your strength and your passion, I can't imagine any one forcing you to pay for a crime you didn't commit in a civil trial. Also, I think it would be natural for any one who finds themselves in this position to work very hard to protect any assets they have earned, especially if these assets would eventually go to the children.
While we are competely at odds over this case, it does not mean that we don't have the same passion and conviction of our beliefs. Kind of scarey when you look at it that way---isn't it? My sister used to get so mad when I would say she was just like our mom, until I explained it to her. While our positions may be different, the passion and the conviction were at the same level. I hope that makes sense and I mean no offense in comparing you to me. I hope you don't take it that way.
You're missing the point. What if police departments, hospitals, doctors etc., just decided not to pay civil judgements because they don't agree with the verdict? Where would that leave people that have been damaged by their actions?
As for the children, this argument is pointless. OJ Simpson owes a civil judgement. His children would have to make their own way in life like almost every else's children including my own. He's not obligated nor should it be expected for him to support them all their lives once they've reached maturity. It's just an excuse for him to gain sympathy for dodging the judgement. If he can't support them forever or leave them a fortune it's his own fault. He killed two human beings.
You're right I have conviction about this case -- I'm not sure I'd call it a passion. Some days I feel more passionate about it than other days. I don't mind you comparing yourself to me, why would I? One of the differences you and I have is the answer to why he won't pay the judgement. You think it's because he doesn't want to pay for a crime he didn't commit, I think he just didn't want to part with his money.
martin II
10-27-2009, 04:47 AM
I understand that you don't think it serves any purpose to discuss what others do in regard to Simpson, unless it is brought up in some sense with which you agree, as with the recent posts on other cases and MF's involvement in them or the desire to have him involved or the chance to take jabs at others not involved in the Simpson case or the reference to a District Attorney, who was not involved in the case. On the other hand, I see these thing as a natural and tangential discussion of issues that are related to the case (perhaps, that should be a new thread). In any event there have been many discussions that I thought served no purpose but that did not stop those, who wanted to discuss them. The idea is that the thought is it is disgusting that Simpson would try to avoid paying the judgment or should it be disgusting that Simpson would try to avoid paying the judgment and, as such, IMHO, it allows for a discussion of whether others, who use such methods, are equally disgusting or whether the fact that they use such methods is indicative of the fact that they are double murders and, therefore, find it reasonable to use such methods. :)
If we discuss what "others think", American Public, about the criminal verdict,
is it not proper to discuss what "Others think or do" as it relates to using florida law to protect their assets?
martin II
10-27-2009, 05:09 AM
You're missing the point. What if police departments, hospitals, doctors etc., just decided not to pay civil judgements because they don't agree with the verdict? Where would that leave people that have been damaged by their actions?
As for the children, this argument is pointless. OJ Simpson owes a civil judgement. His children would have to make their own way in life like almost every else's children including my own. He's not obligated nor should it be expected for him to support them all their lives once they've reached maturity. It's just an excuse for him to gain sympathy for dodging the judgement. If he can't support them forever or leave them a fortune it's his own fault. He killed two human beings.
You're right I have conviction about this case -- I'm not sure I'd call it a passion. Some days I feel more passionate about it than other days. I don't mind you comparing yourself to me, why would I? One of the differences you and I have is the answer to why he won't pay the judgement. You think it's because he doesn't want to pay for a crime he didn't commit, I think he just didn't want to part with his money.
I am sure that it is up to a parent to decide how long he will support his children. Not every parent cuts their concern or assistance to their children at adulthood and only a parent knows when a child is prepared to go it for themselves. OJ would be no different from others that allow adult children to move back to their homes because of financial problems.
The fact is that most civil judgements are never paid in America. Most judgement creditors end up writing judgements off after years of not collecting and collect from insurance companies.
I think it would be very difficult for a person to sell his home and give up all his assets to a person holding a judgement against him based on being held liable and facing a judgement by all accounts was extremely excessive when he knows he did not do what the verdict said he did.
I don't think one has a responsibility or should allow oneself to be guided by what some public opinion is about not paying the judgement. Public opinion means nothing if one is required to give all of his and his childrens assets just to be in favor by the public. imo
martin II
10-27-2009, 05:21 AM
Here is a opinion on the judgement.
SIZE OF DAMAGES RAISES LEGAL EYEBROWS : THE PUNITIVE PHASE.
Byline: Anne Burke Daily News Staff Writer
The jury's $8.5 million judgment against O.J. Simpson was a whopper Whopper - WarGames that Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki may choose to lower, legal analysts said Wednesday.
Fujisaki may decide that the compensatory damages A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. awarded by a Santa Monica Santa Monica (săn`tə mŏn`ĭkə), city (1990 pop. 86,905), Los Angeles co., S Calif., on Santa Monica Bay; inc. 1886. Tourism and retailing are important, and the city has motion-picture, biotechnology, and software industries. jury Tuesday are excessive and were based on things the panel wasn't supposed to consider - the suffering of Ronald Goldman's family and the heinousness of the killings.
``(The) $8.5 million is off the charts,'' said civil attorney Cynthia McClain-Hill. ``(Fujisaki) has the power and some may believe he has the obligation to reduce the judgment. trial here is not just O.J. Simpson, but our judicial system and its ability to mete out justice and fairness.''
``Anybody who handles tort claims would agree this was a very generous award. Whether it will stand scrutiny from Judge Fujisaki in the first instance and then later by a court of appeal'' remains to be seen, said Charles J. Mazursky, former president of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.
Compensatory damages are designed to pay a loved one for the loss of society, comfort and companionship. A multimillion-dollar judgment might occur when young children lose a high-income parent, but usually not when a parent loses an emancipated e·man·ci·pate
tr.v. e·man·ci·pat·ed, e·man·ci·pat·ing, e·man·ci·pates
1. To free from bondage, oppression, or restraint; liberate.
2. adult child, attorneys said.
The $8.5 million was awarded to Ronald Goldman's father, Fred, and mother, Sharon Rufo.
In the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson Nicole Brown Simpson (May 19, 1959 – June 12, 1994) was the wife of American football player O.J. Simpson. Found murdered at her home in Los Angeles, California, along with her friend Ronald Goldman, her death led to one of the most controversial and widely-discussed criminal , there were no compensatory damages. The Browns instead filed a survivorship survivorship n. the right to receive full title or ownership due to having survived another person. Survivorship is particularly applied to persons owning real property or other assets, such as bank accounts or stocks, in "joint tenancy. claim to avoid putting the children in the position of suing their father. Such a suit does not permit compensatory damages.
The size of the judgment suggests that jurors wanted to send Simpson a strong message about the brutality of the killings. It also may signal that his denials about beating his wife and wearing Bruno Magli shoes did not sit well with panel members.
If that's the case, jurors may have been confused about their job, legal experts said.
Compensatory damages are not supposed to punish. That's what punitive damages Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer. are for, but that was not made clear to jurors when they were sent into the deliberations room.
The punitive phase starts today in the same courtroom. The plaintiffs are expected to put on the witness stand a forensic accountant and a marketing expert to talk about Simpson's current wealth and his potential earnings from his name and likeness.
Plaintiffs' lawyer Peter Gelblum said in a brief court hearing Wednesday outside the jury's presence that the defense lawyers have put Simpson's net worth at $500,000.
The plaintiffs believe the former actor, football star and corporate pitchman is worth a lot more. Published reports have put his wealth at $3 million and more.
While his Rockingham Avenue estate is heavily encumbered Encumbered
A property owned by one party on which a second party reserves the right to make a valid claim, e.g., a bank's holding of a home mortgage encumbers property. , Simpson has a lot of money in retirement and pension funds set up during the 1980s. Such funds generally are exempt from creditor claims, but if Simpson borrows early on them, that money would be within reach of the plaintiffs, according to Richard Brunette Jr., a business bankruptcy specialist.
The defense is expected to tell jurors at the punitive phase that Simpson's financial future is bleak, and that he won't be able to come up with the $8.5 million, much less another huge judgment.
``I'm sure Bob Baker will say, `You've already assessed a multimillion dollar award against my client, how much more will you punish him?' '' Mazursky said.
Whatever the jury's decision about punitive damages, defense lawyers will appeal to the judge to lower the compensatory award.
They could claim the jury was moved by the suffering of Fred Goldman and his daughter, Kim, or that they were angry at Simpson because they thought he lied.
``Fujisaki was sitting there the whole time. He can really determine, `Is this a fair amount, or is it inflamed because of passion and outrage?' '' said Wayne McClean, a Woodland Hills lawyer and former president of the Consumer Attorneys of California This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. .
Fred Goldman said Tuesday night that all he wanted was justice for his son, Ronald, and Nicole Simpson. That may be all he'll get, for a while, anyway.
Simpson is bound to appeal. He has some good issues having to do with Fujisaki's admittance Admittance
The ratio of the current to the voltage in an alternating-current circuit. In terms of complex current I and voltage V, the admittance of a circuit is given by Eq. (1), and is related to the impedance of the circuit Z by Eq. (2). of testimony about a polygraph An instrument used to measure physiological responses in humans when they are questioned in order to determine if their answers are truthful.
Also known as a "lie detector," the polygraph has a controversial history in U.S. law. test and a call to a domestic abuse center.
To do that, Simpson would have to post a bond of 150 percent of the value of compensatory and punitive damages. That wouldn't be easy to do because a bonding company likely would require 100 percent collateral, Brunette said.
Jurors will return to court today to hear testimony about O.J. Simpson's personal finances.
The panel that found Simpson liable in the killings, and which awarded the Goldman family $8.5 million in compensatory damages, must decide whether he should be punished further.
In awarding punitive damages, jurors must consider how reprehensiblyrep·re·hen·si·ble
adj.
Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See Synonyms at blameworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin repreh
..... Click the link for more information. Simpson acted, whether the damage awards ``bear a reasonable relation'' to the nature of the killings and how much the award would hurt Simpson financially.
California law sets no limits on punitive awards.
martin II
10-27-2009, 05:26 AM
You're missing the point. What if police departments, hospitals, doctors etc., just decided not to pay civil judgements because they don't agree with the verdict? Where would that leave people that have been damaged by their actions?
As for the children, this argument is pointless. OJ Simpson owes a civil judgement. His children would have to make their own way in life like almost every else's children including my own. He's not obligated nor should it be expected for him to support them all their lives once they've reached maturity. It's just an excuse for him to gain sympathy for dodging the judgement. If he can't support them forever or leave them a fortune it's his own fault. He killed two human beings.
You're right I have conviction about this case -- I'm not sure I'd call it a passion. Some days I feel more passionate about it than other days. I don't mind you comparing yourself to me, why would I? One of the differences you and I have is the answer to why he won't pay the judgement. You think it's because he doesn't want to pay for a crime he didn't commit, I think he just didn't want to part with his money.
Simpson gave his reason or intent on the judgement. i think he is the only one
that can speak with authority on this subject just as some say fred is the only one that can speak on his motives for wanting the money.imo
martin II
10-27-2009, 05:30 AM
It wasn't long ago that you said you didn't care for the Rev. Jackson but you're entitled to change your mind. I actually like the Rev. Sharpton when he's not being political and he does a pretty mean moonwalk. That building that burned down though...not good. I'm glad you understand -- some things are just irresistable.
If we are talking about the same building REV Sharpton was no place near that building when it caught fire.imo
GreenIce
10-27-2009, 06:24 AM
You know, in the last few days I wondered where our real GreenIce has been but I see it's you after all. Now Mr. Goldman is two-faced... do any of these other 'villians' have names?
Do you really believe that people are never punished for or forced to desolve sham coporations? A legal determination was made that Lorraine Brooke Associates was set up to as a sham for the sole purpose of allowing OJ Simpson to make money from the piece of trash book. It was wrong. For purposes of this forum, it doesn't matter who has done it, legally or illegally. We're talking about OJ Simpson.
TV,
I made one comment about one comment Mr. Goldman made regarding the book and I supported my reason on why I feel this way about the comments made about a book as well as his lawyers said about the Browns. I did not call him a villian, I was quite clear on that. Also, I have been clear that whatever Mr. Goldman has said or done, it is his right.
Well perhaps I wasn't quite clear on calling Mr. Goldman a villian. I should have been more specific and I truly meant it was the publishers and the media hype surrounding the book are the villians. Judith Regan thought she would make a fortune on the book. When the public turned against her, she changed her reasons for doing the book. She should have just stayed on the money train.
I believe Mr. Goldman should have just stayed on the money train. From the very beginning he said it was about the money but when confronted with his comments about the book and the Browns, that is when he changed his tune. However, whatever Goldman says or does regarding the book, IMO, doesn't matter. What does matter to me is that publisher planned to make a hell of a lot of money off of the book as well as the media interviews surrounding the book.
And I really don't think Mr. Goldman cares about what I or anyone else thinks.
And you are wrong, our legal system and the laws that govern it, in both the criminal and civil trial arenas are based on presidence (sp?) The laws Mr. Simpson has used to his favor have been place for decades and will remain in place for decades more. Our legal systems, warts and all, did not start and did not end with the trials of OJ Simpson.
GreenIce
10-27-2009, 06:53 AM
You're missing the point. What if police departments, hospitals, doctors etc., just decided not to pay civil judgements because they don't agree with the verdict? Where would that leave people that have been damaged by their actions?
As for the children, this argument is pointless. OJ Simpson owes a civil judgement. His children would have to make their own way in life like almost every else's children including my own. He's not obligated nor should it be expected for him to support them all their lives once they've reached maturity. It's just an excuse for him to gain sympathy for dodging the judgement. If he can't support them forever or leave them a fortune it's his own fault. He killed two human beings.
You're right I have conviction about this case -- I'm not sure I'd call it a passion. Some days I feel more passionate about it than other days. I don't mind you comparing yourself to me, why would I? One of the differences you and I have is the answer to why he won't pay the judgement. You think it's because he doesn't want to pay for a crime he didn't commit, I think he just didn't want to part with his money.
TV,
I don't think any person, especially a rich person, likes to part with their money---under any circumstances. Which is why we have so many laws in place to protect the rich.
I don't think you can compare suing a company or a police department vs suing an individual. Also, many of these compaines do acknowledge their wrong doings and do their best to minimize the amount of the settlement. Also, it would be interesting to know just how many of these settlements against a police department are lowered.
martin II
10-27-2009, 08:31 AM
Changing of positions.
Goldman looked uncomfortable, and how could he not be? After all, as Oprah pointed out, back when O.J. and publishing exec Judith Regan were behind the book, Goldman was denouncing it, going on Larry King to announce that, "The fact that someone is willing to publish this garbage...is just morally despicable to me. I would hope that no one buys the book."
The Goldman version of the infamous O.J. tome.
Now here the guy is on national TV trying to make an argument for the very same snuff book. Goldman complains that he and his family have not been able to collect on the $21 million awarded to the Goldmans in 1997 as a result of their civil suit against Simpson. So this is their chance. Indeed, the Goldmans will receive 90% of the profits from the book, according to the Oprah show. That's 17 cents on every book sold.
So what if Simpson had been putting out a DVD with footage of Ron's mutilated body? Would Goldman have sued for the rights, repackaged it and sold it to the very same public he asked to reject it? Anyway you slice it, Goldman's one-eighty on all this smacks of betrayal, money-grubbing, and media-whoring. And this lame cliche that it might help victims of domestic violence is total hooey. Goldman told Oprah:
"I hope that one single woman in an abusive relationship reads this book and says, 'God, that could be me. I have to get out and save my own life.' One single woman will be worth it."
Hey, tell it to Denise Brown, sister of the murdered Nicole Brown Simpson. Actually, he couldn't tell it to her because Denise Brown refused to even be seated near Goldman, whom she's been denouncing left and right as a hypocrite. Brown was only slightly muted on the Oprah show compared to print interviews she's given. Still, she came off as an avenging angel, full of righteous fury towards Fred Goldman et famille for pulling this stunt, one she wants no part of. To Oprah, she complained,
"I truly believe that they did wrong, that they did me wrong this time. Everybody stood up and said no to the publication of this book. I stood my ground on that. I still don't think it should be published. I think it is a morally wrong thing to do."
Kayleighjo
10-27-2009, 08:34 AM
Since that didn't happen, I don't think that is why people are mad.
That would be your opinion.
Kayleighjo
10-27-2009, 08:45 AM
TV,
I have to disagree with you. IMO, others who have done this before Simpson were allowed to do so because it was a legal act. What makes it wrong illegal or wrong just because it is Simpson?
Sham companies and ways to beat taxes, etc., have been on the books for years and years. If it is wrong or illegal for Simpson to have done this, then it should have been wrong for all the times in the past and in the future.
IMO, the villian here are not the Simpsons. The villians are the people who thought they would make millions off of a book and later try to justify their actions by saying they were doing it for Ron and Nicole. That they were speaking for the victims. They should have said what it was, they wanted to make money off of a book and if meant promising Simpson so much money that would not go to the judgement or to delay revealing the facts of the contract until after he got paid, so be it.
My only problem with Regan and the Goldmans' is their change on why they wanted the book published. I think in one of the links provided, one of the Goldmans said, I think it was Fred, something about if one woman was helped because of the DV discussion in the book, then it would be worth it. IMO, while I have always stood up for them on what they were trying to accomplish, I did take a double take on this statement and I do find it to be a very two faced statement on the Goldmans' part. I also find the comments their lawyer made about the Browns to be in poor taste and never should have been said. But, to each his own.
I have no problems with the Goldmans stance on this issue, I do have a problem when they try to be advocates for an issue they made clear they wanted nothing to do with. Again, IMO.
Sham companies are illegal, and people have been busted and the consequences heavy. I don't see anyone on this board advocating sham companies, but you act like it's only in regard to Simpson that we find it unacceptable.
weezer
10-27-2009, 08:52 AM
Changing of positions.
Goldman looked uncomfortable, and how could he not be? After all, as Oprah pointed out, back when O.J. and publishing exec Judith Regan were behind the book, Goldman was denouncing it, going on Larry King to announce that, "The fact that someone is willing to publish this garbage...is just morally despicable to me. I would hope that no one buys the book."
The Goldman version of the infamous O.J. tome.
Now here the guy is on national TV trying to make an argument for the very same snuff book. Goldman complains that he and his family have not been able to collect on the $21 million awarded to the Goldmans in 1997 as a result of their civil suit against Simpson. So this is their chance. Indeed, the Goldmans will receive 90% of the profits from the book, according to the Oprah show. That's 17 cents on every book sold.
So what if Simpson had been putting out a DVD with footage of Ron's mutilated body? Would Goldman have sued for the rights, repackaged it and sold it to the very same public he asked to reject it? Anyway you slice it, Goldman's one-eighty on all this smacks of betrayal, money-grubbing, and media-whoring. And this lame cliche that it might help victims of domestic violence is total hooey. Goldman told Oprah:
"I hope that one single woman in an abusive relationship reads this book and says, 'God, that could be me. I have to get out and save my own life.' One single woman will be worth it."
Hey, tell it to Denise Brown, sister of the murdered Nicole Brown Simpson. Actually, he couldn't tell it to her because Denise Brown refused to even be seated near Goldman, whom she's been denouncing left and right as a hypocrite. Brown was only slightly muted on the Oprah show compared to print interviews she's given. Still, she came off as an avenging angel, full of righteous fury towards Fred Goldman et famille for pulling this stunt, one she wants no part of. To Oprah, she complained,
"I truly believe that they did wrong, that they did me wrong this time. Everybody stood up and said no to the publication of this book. I stood my ground on that. I still don't think it should be published. I think it is a morally wrong thing to do."
for you to continue to bash Mr. Goldman about the publication of the book is outrageous, distasteful, coarse, and obscene. You have been given -- multiple times -- the link, wording, date, time, and specific court order that forced the publication of the book. For you to continue to post dishonestly about the circumstances leads me to believe you think you've found a safe way to dinegrate Mr. Goldman -- you have not. You look like what you are.
weezer
10-27-2009, 08:54 AM
Sham companies are illegal, and people have been busted and the consequences heavy. I don't see anyone on this board advocating sham companies, but you act like it's only in regard to Simpson that we find it unacceptable.
as far as the NG's are concerned, when it comes to orenthal anything and everything is okay: beating his wife, stalking, threatening, murder, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, drug use. . . .
martin II
10-27-2009, 10:26 AM
Police abuse of citizens is the largest monetary value paid for civil judgements. Usually it is in the multimillion dollars level.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 10:33 AM
To clarify -- OJ Simpson played dirty when he used illegal ways to avoid payment and hide his money.
The same as others before him have done, which is how he learned, and it may be called "The American Way".
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 10:35 AM
I couldn't agree more. :)
I would hope that this saying holds true for both genders.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 10:41 AM
If we discuss what "others think", American Public, about the criminal verdict,
is it not proper to discuss what "Others think or do" as it relates to using florida law to protect their assets?
Is it not proper to discuss the illegal ways others have sought to avoid paying judgments?
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 10:47 AM
as far as the NG's are concerned, when it comes to orenthal anything and everything is okay: beating his wife, stalking, threatening, murder, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, drug use. . . .
I see it quite differently. No one is saying that Simpson was/is perfect but there are those here, who seem to think, or, at least, express it in a manner that Simpson was/is the worst person that ever lived and go as far as accusing him of things he was found to be not guilty.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 11:19 AM
That would be your opinion.
Simpson received a trial after being charged with murdering two people, in which a jury of his peers rendered a verdict that he was not guilty and, in that sense, justice was served and not overridden.
Kayleighjo
10-27-2009, 11:39 AM
Simpson received a trial after being charged with murdering two people, in which a jury of his peers rendered a verdict that he was not guilty and, in that sense, justice was served and not overridden.
That would be your opinion.
It's foolish to believe that jury nullification doesn't exist.
martin II
10-27-2009, 11:59 AM
for you to continue to bash Mr. Goldman about the publication of the book is outrageous, distasteful, coarse, and obscene. You have been given -- multiple times -- the link, wording, date, time, and specific court order that forced the publication of the book. For you to continue to post dishonestly about the circumstances leads me to believe you think you've found a safe way to dinegrate Mr. Goldman -- you have not. You look like what you are.
posting a media article evaluating goldmans change in policy is not bashing. That is what is being discussed. this article was previously posted and i think it is not necessary for you to use such hasrsh words simply because you dissagree with the contects of the article.The book was given to fred by a judge. He was asked to max the profit. He was not forced to ask for a book that he had previously condemmed as trash that should not see the light of day. The article highlights the change of heart when he was in a position to reap benefits.
if my post cause you to be up set i suggest you ignore the post or put my post on ignore. i have no desire to argue with you. thanks. all my opinion.
martin II
10-27-2009, 12:07 PM
as far as the NG's are concerned, when it comes to orenthal anything and everything is okay: beating his wife, stalking, threatening, murder, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, drug use. . . .
I am sure you know that oj simposon has never been convicted of any of the items you have listed. What he was charged with and what the verdicts were in each case is well known by all posting here. Yet you make post containing false info. What you think and what he has been charged and convicted of is two different things. I look to the courts.
Kayleighjo
10-27-2009, 12:13 PM
I am sure you know that oj simposon has never been convicted of any of the items you have listed. What he was charged with and what the verdicts were in each case is well known by all posting here. Yet you make post containing false info. What you think and what he has been charged and convicted of is two different things. I look to the courts.
Did he not plead "no contest" to beating his wife in 1989? Same as Fuhrman plead "no contest" to perjury?
Convicted.
Hmmm.
martin II
10-27-2009, 12:42 PM
It appears that ojs request for a reduction in the award was ignored. He told them he did not have that kind of money. So why did some act surprised when he said "i will not pay"
Byline: Linda Deutsch Associated Press Associated Press: see news agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press (AP)
Cooperative news agency, the oldest and largest in the U.S. and long the largest in the world.
Jurors swayed by passion and prejudice tried to destroy O.J. Simpson financially with a $33.5 million judgment in his wrongful deathThe taking of the life of an individual resulting from the willful or negligent act of another person or persons.
If a person is killed because of the wrongful conduct of a person or persons, the decedent's heirs and other beneficiaries may file a wrongful death action
..... Click the link for more information. case, lawyers claimed Friday in a bid for a new trial.
``California lawCalifornia Law consists of 29 codes, covering various subject areas, the State Constitution and Statutes.
..... Click the link for more information. makes it abundantly clear that an award of punitive damagesMonetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.
..... Click the link for more information. may sting but not destroy a defendant,'' defense attorneys Daniel Leonard and Phillip Baker said in a court filing.
In addition, the method by which jurors arrived at compensatory damages A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. for plaintiff Fred Goldman was ``by chance,'' the attorneys argued.
``I'm looking for Looking for
In the context of general equities, this describing a buy interest in which a dealer is asked to offer stock, often involving a capital commitment. Antithesis of in touch with. fairness,'' Simpson said when contacted at home about his lawyers' legal maneuverings.
Simpson, acquitted of killing ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson Nicole Brown Simpson (May 19, 1959 – June 12, 1994) was the wife of American football player O.J. Simpson. Found murdered at her home in Los Angeles, California, along with her friend Ronald Goldman, her death led to one of the most controversial and widely-discussed criminal and her friend Ronald Goldman, was found liable for their deaths by a civil jury.
He was ordered to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Goldman's parents, and $25 million in punitive damages to all plaintiffs.
The defense brief, a so-called memorandum of points and authority, asks Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki to overturn the verdicts before an actual motion of appeal is filed.
The lawyers said their jury consultant, Richard Gabriel, found out in post-trial interviews that jurors each wrote on a slip of paper an amount they thought was proper compensation to Goldman for the loss of his son.
The jurors then divided the combined amount by 12 and came up with the total of $8.5 million, the brief said.
``The extraordinary compensatory damage verdict . . . was not the product of a reasoned, objective analysis of the proof offered, but the result of an unbridled exercise of passion, prejudice and sympathy by the jury,'' the attorneys said.
In the punitive damages phase of the trial, they said, the judge erred by refusing to instruct jurors that they could not destroy Simpson financially, but merely were supposed to punish him.
``Instead, the court vaguely instructed the jury only that they must take into account Simpson's financial condition without any further guidance,'' the filing said.
As a result, ``the jury returned grossly excessive punitive damage awards,'' they said. They called the award ``overkill overkill Vox populi An excess of anything .''
The filing said Simpson is unable to pay anything close to what he has been assessed and that jurors were misled by witnesses who told them he would make millions of dollars from the sale of his likeness and name.
``I'm still waiting for all that income they said I was supposed to get,'' Simpson said in an interview. ``Everything is going out and nothing is coming in.''
Simpson said he wants a new trial because he believes the jury was unfair.
``A decision has been made,'' he said. ``I don't agree with the decision, but the award is so unfair.''
The lengthy brief filed on his behalf cited numerous other reasons for overturning the verdicts.
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:05 PM
SNIPPED****". . .Byline: Linda Deutsch Associated Press Associated Press: see news agency. . .
ah yes -- ms deutsch. . . .speaking of scam artists! ;)
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:06 PM
Did he not plead "no contest" to beating his wife in 1989? Same as Fuhrman plead "no contest" to perjury?
Convicted.
Hmmm.
oh yes -- but according to the NG's, that doesn't count. and they continue to ignore Nicole's friends, strangers, diary that detail his constant torment and abuse. sad. very sad.
for you to continue to bash Mr. Goldman about the publication of the book is outrageous, distasteful, coarse, and obscene. You have been given -- multiple times -- the link, wording, date, time, and specific court order that forced the publication of the book. For you to continue to post dishonestly about the circumstances leads me to believe you think you've found a safe way to dinegrate Mr. Goldman -- you have not. You look like what you are.
:beer::beer:
oh yes -- but according to the NG's, that doesn't count. and they continue to ignore Nicole's friends, strangers, diary that detail his constant torment and abuse. sad. very sad.
According to them Mark Fuhrman is guilty of perjury but OJ Simpson was just being noble when he pleaded no contest. As usual, one standard for OJ Simpson and a different one for everyone else.
ah yes -- ms deutsch. . . .speaking of scam artists! ;)
There couldn't be a 'journalist' in any thicker with OJ Simpson, lol!
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:13 PM
According to them Mark Fuhrman is guilty of perjury but OJ Simpson was just being noble when he pleaded no contest. As usual, one standard for OJ Simpson and a different one for everyone else.
LOL - everyone in the domestic violence case, murder case, civil case, and armed robbery case lied on poor, ole orenthal. . .;) Go figure.
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:14 PM
There couldn't be a 'journalist' in any thicker with OJ Simpson, lol!
I'm not believing anyone would take anything she writes about him as truthful and/or unbiased. Good Gawd!
The same as others before him have done, which is how he learned, and it may be called "The American Way".
So now you bash America to make it okay for OJ Simpson to be a liar and a cheat? This is getting more amusing by the day.
I'm not believing anyone would take anything she writes about him as truthful and/or unbiased. Good Gawd!
Me either. Her bias toward OJ Simpson is well known and her credibility is non-existant as far as I'm concerned.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:18 PM
That would be your opinion.
It's foolish to believe that jury nullification doesn't exist.
No one that I know believes that jury nullification does not exist. However, based on the cross, the defense's case, the weaknesses in the prosecution's case, the weakness of the prosecution's summation and the strength of the defense's summation, it would be foolish and wishful, IMHO, to believe that jury nullification existed in this case.
LOL - everyone in the domestic violence case, murder case, civil case, and armed robbery case lied on poor, ole orenthal. . .;) Go figure.
I guess he's just a victim of the American Way. It's not bad enough that we're blamed for everything that's wrong in the world -- now Americans are to blame for OJ Simpson's sociopathic tendencies. I swear, weezer, you couldn't make this stuff up!! :D
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:23 PM
ah yes -- ms deutsch. . . .speaking of scam artists! ;)
I hope that you remember that an attorney, who knew her personally, posted that he found her to be honest, truthful and unbiased. I guess that does not matter when one may have already formed a conclusion based on what they believe.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:24 PM
oh yes -- but according to the NG's, that doesn't count. and they continue to ignore Nicole's friends, strangers, diary that detail his constant torment and abuse. sad. very sad.
I do not ignore it but I do reiterate that spousal abuse does not equal murder.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:31 PM
So now you bash America to make it okay for OJ Simpson to be a liar and a cheat? This is getting more amusing by the day.
What make you think that I said it was okay for Simpson to avoid paying the judgment, when I posted eons ago that I personally thought he should pay the judgment. The fact that I mentioned the fact that he was not the first to avoid paying the judgment, using illegal ways and that he may have learned that from others, who did the same or similar things, and said it may be called the "The American Way" and may be seen as bashing what the formers did, which means that I am also bashing what Simpson did is unbiased, IMHO, as opposed to defending what others did and bashing Simpson for doing the same or similar.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:34 PM
I guess he's just a victim of the American Way. It's not bad enough that we're blamed for everything that's wrong in the world -- now Americans are to blame for OJ Simpson's sociopathic tendencies. I swear, weezer, you couldn't make this stuff up!! :D
I think you missed the point, which is that sociopathic tendencies (I guess this refers to the hesitancy in paying the judgment) are abundant in America but seemed to be upheld or unrecognized by some toward some.
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:34 PM
I hope that you remember that an attorney, who knew her personally, posted that he found her to be honest, truthful and unbiased. I guess that does not matter when one may have already formed a conclusion based on what they believe.
and Nicole loved orenthal at one time -- so what? he spent 17 years tormenting, threatening, and abusing her until he finally killed her.
gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle."
weezer
10-27-2009, 01:36 PM
I do not ignore it but I do reiterate that spousal abuse does not equal murder.
not always but in this particular case, orenthal's years of physical and emotional abuse, threatening, and stalking did.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:43 PM
and Nicole loved orenthal at one time -- so what? he spent 17 years tormenting, threatening, and abusing her until he finally killed her.
gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle."
IIRC, the poster used the name Jswickard@law but signed his post, Jack Neal and posted that he represented Beardsley. There has been no finding but there are opinions not based on what the juries' verdicts determined the evidence proved that say Simpson is guilty of murder, which is like saying I believe it not because the evidence allows me to but because I want to believe it, IMHO.
William Anthony
10-27-2009, 01:44 PM
not always but in this particular case, orenthal's years of physical and emotional abuse, threatening, and stalking did.
See response to post above.
and Nicole loved orenthal at one time -- so what? he spent 17 years tormenting, threatening, and abusing her until he finally killed her.
gallanter vouching for her isn't at all impressive. that's like saying, "Pot, meet kettle."
Besides, we know Gallanter is sometimes wrong. Remember his denial that there was no book in the works?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.