The children

[Jules100]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

[weezer]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

it's very sad when a young child loses a parent -- made even sadder when one of the parents is the accused. I've never read statements from the kids that gave an indication one way or the other as to their beliefs. I do think it's interesting and maybe even telling, that when the daughters had altercations with orenthal, they called 911. I also was more than a little sad that Justin and Sydney were willing to take money for orenthal's confession book. :(

[tv]

it's very sad when a young child loses a parent -- made even sadder when one of the parents is the accused. I've never read statements from the kids that gave an indication one way or the other as to their beliefs. I do think it's interesting and maybe even telling, that when the daughters had altercations with orenthal, they called 911. I also was more than a little sad that Justin and Sydney were willing to take money for orenthal's confession book. :(

I've always felt that the children are probably very conflicted on their feelings for their father. I'm sure they don't want to believe he killed Nicole but I'm sure they're smart enough to put the facts together. They've also heard all the bad things that have been said about Nicole and that figures into what they think of the situation. I don't know if their father has ever said anything negative to them about Nicole but his confession book trashed her so they must know how his feelings. I was also disappointed they took part in the book. So sad for Nicole. IMO.

[Jules100]

I've always felt that the children are probably very conflicted on their feelings for their father. I'm sure they don't want to believe he killed Nicole but I'm sure they're smart enough to put the facts together. They've also heard all the bad things that have been said about Nicole and that figures into what they think of the situation. I don't know if their father has ever said anything negative to them about Nicole but his confession book trashed her so they must know how his feelings. I was also disappointed they took part in the book. So sad for Nicole. IMO.

I didn't realise that they took money from the book, i thought that it had all gone to the Goldman family- how old are the kids now

[susie31023]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

Jules I have also thought about the children and how conflicted they must be..This case is a very very sad one in that they put the victim on trial..I read here often but never post. My feelings are strong and I don't want to argue a moot point. My prayers go out to Sydney and Justin :rose:for losing their mother and having to hear/read the negative things against her.

I think OJ did it but it is again a moot point in that the jury has already made their decisions and no amount of argument can take that back. We all must answer to a higher power and those who have been wronged will have justice then. That's just my opinion~Susie

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]]

Jules I have also thought about the children and how conflicted they must be..This case is a very very sad one in that they put the victim on trial..I read here often but never post. My feelings are strong and I don't want to argue a moot point. My prayers go out to Sydney and Justin :rose:for losing their mother and having to hear/read the negative things against her.

I think OJ did it but it is again a moot point in that the jury has already made their decisions and no amount of argument can take that back. We all must answer to a higher power and those who have been wronged will have justice then. That's just my opinion~Susie

A well articulated post. I think we all make a mistake when we try to impose our will over God's.

[susie31023]

[quote=susie31023;9123099]

A well articulated post. I think we all make a mistake when we try to impose our will over God's.

Thank you William, it's just how I feel..

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]

Thank you William, it's just how I feel..

One of my favorite lines from "Tombstone" was spoken by Doc Holiday. It is not revenge he is after, it is the reckoning. I pray that God will use me as an instrument to do his will.

[martin II]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

I think the children are 18 and 19 and are both in college. one away from home and one close to Miami.

I have not read any report that either is anything but well adjusted people doing quite well. Denise Brown has confirmed this in her contact with them.

This in contrary to what some had expected or assumed the case would be
based on their opinions of Simpson.imo

[weezer]

I think the children are 18 and 19 and are both in college. one away from home and one close to Miami.

I have not read any report that either is anything but well adjusted people doing quite well. Denise Brown has confirmed this in her contact with them.

This in contrary to what some had expected or assumed the case would be
based on their opinions of Simpson.imo

Except for Sydney's fights at the school and with orenthal, I haven't heard anything else about them.

the kids are 20 and 23 --

[Jules100]

Except for Sydney's fights at the school and with orenthal, I haven't heard anything else about them.

the kids are 20 and 23 --

I didn't realise that they were that old, obviously old enough to form their own opinions, i wonder if they have contact with their moms family, that must be quite difficult for them too, being around people who think their father killed their mother

[weezer]

I didn't realise that they were that old, obviously old enough to form their own opinions, i wonder if they have contact with their moms family, that must be quite difficult for them too, being around people who think their father killed their mother

I don't know anymore how I feel. I mean, I'm sorry that they grew up without their mom who obviously loved them very much but then when you read that they were willing to take money for their dad to write his confession of how he did it -- something's just not right there.

[susie31023]

[quote=susie31023;9123116]

One of my favorite lines from "Tombstone" was spoken by Doc Holiday. It is not revenge he is after, it is the reckoning. I pray that God will use me as an instrument to do his will.

I remember that well William. O/T and just a note, Doc was born not far from where I was born[ albeit many many years later,LOL].

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]

I remember that well William. O/T and just a note, Doc was born not far from where I was born[ albeit many many years later,LOL].

I feel that the children undoubtedly have mixed emotions and pray that they will find some comfort so that they will not traumatized by the remarks of those in the court of public opinion and add that Simpson's antics have not helped in the process. I agree that the true murder, while he/they may have escaped punishment on earth, will receive their just rewards at the time of the reckoning.

[susie31023]

I feel that the children undoubtedly have mixed emotions and pray that they will find some comfort so that they will not traumatized by the remarks of those in the court of public opinion and add that Simpson's antics have not helped in the process. I agree that the true murder, while he/they may have escaped punishment on earth, will receive their just rewards at the time of the reckoning.

Thank you William, that was what I was trying to say..We may be able to fool people here on Earth, but no one can fool God, Just my opinion..

[martin II]

Except for Sydney's fights at the school and with orenthal, I haven't heard anything else about them.

the kids are 20 and 23 --

I remember a high school mate made some bad remarks to sydney about nicole and sydney responded phyically i think. I remember Sydney called the police on oj because she wanted to go to a party at a friends house one night.Oj said no. Police came discussed the issue with oj and sydney and the issue was resolved. i know of no FIGHTS as you call it.

[William Anthony]

Thank you William, that was what I was trying to say..We may be able to fool people here on Earth, but no one can fool God, Just my opinion..

I also hope with all my being, for the sake of all the children, it is proven that the murderer is not Simpson.

[martin II]

I don't know anymore how I feel. I mean, I'm sorry that they grew up without their mom who obviously loved them very much but then when you read that they were willing to take money for their dad to write his confession of how he did it -- something's just not right there.


You may be having some kind of problem with the facts. Maby i can help you.
I am sure there has not been a book written by oj that he said was a confession or had the title of HOW I DID IT. I am sure the title of ojs book was IF I DID IT.imo
martin II

[weezer]

You may be having some kind of problem with the facts. Maby i can help you.
I am sure there has not been a book written by oj that he said was a confession or had the title of HOW I DID IT. I am sure the title of ojs book was IF I DID IT.imo
martin II

nope -- I'm not having problems with the facts -- you're having problems with reality. did orenthal write a book describing how he would have murdered Ron and Nicole? yes, he did. I did not say the title of the book was 'how' -- I said he wrote a book describing 'how' --

my sadness comes from Nicole's children willing to accept money for the description of her brutal death by their father. It just seems wrong to me.

[weezer]

I remember a high school mate made some bad remarks to sydney about nicole and sydney responded phyically i think. I remember Sydney called the police on oj because she wanted to go to a party at a friends house one night.Oj said no. Police came discussed the issue with oj and sydney and the issue was resolved. i know of no FIGHTS as you call it.

I didn't say 'fights' -- I said altercations.

[tv]

I didn't say 'fights' -- I said altercations.When a child calls 911 crying and calls her father an a**h*** and says he doesn't love any of his children that sure sounds like an altercation to me.

[weezer]

I re-read my post and I did say 'fights' -- sorry. okay so sydney has been involved in two 'fights' -- one physical and one not (that we know of).

[weezer]

When a child calls 911 crying and calls her father an a**h*** and says he doesn't love any of his children that sure sounds like an altercation to me.

I find it even more interesting that both girls called 911 during a confrontation with orenthal. sounds like someone doesn't exactly trust him. :eek:

[martin II]

I didn't realise that they were that old, obviously old enough to form their own opinions, i wonder if they have contact with their moms family, that must be quite difficult for them too, being around people who think their father killed their mother

The last i heard Sydney goes to california on summer vacation to see friends bur not the browns.

[martin II]

When a child calls 911 crying and calls her father an a**h*** and says he doesn't love any of his children that sure sounds like an altercation to me.

le came to the house and talked to Sydney and oj and the situation was resolved so what we may think of the situation dosen't matter since we were not there and no charges were made. I think Sydney calmed down and went to bed.imo

[martin II]

I find it even more interesting that both girls called 911 during a confrontation with orenthal. sounds like someone doesn't exactly trust him. :eek:

I am sure 'IT' sound like 'SOMETHING" to "SOME" hahaha

[martin II]

nope -- I'm not having problems with the facts -- you're having problems with reality. did orenthal write a book describing how he would have murdered Ron and Nicole? yes, he did. I did not say the title of the book was 'how' -- I said he wrote a book describing 'how' --

my sadness comes from Nicole's children willing to accept money for the description of her brutal death by their father. It just seems wrong to me.

The title of the book was 'IF I DID IT" any twisting of the title is nonsense or non truth.

[martin II]

nope -- I'm not having problems with the facts -- you're having problems with reality. did orenthal write a book describing how he would have murdered Ron and Nicole? yes, he did. I did not say the title of the book was 'how' -- I said he wrote a book describing 'how' --

my sadness comes from Nicole's children willing to accept money for the description of her brutal death by their father. It just seems wrong to me.

I am sure it does sound that way for you but as far as i know you were/are not a oj simpson child. So that leaves you uninformed about any of their motives for anytrhing.imo

[weezer]

The title of the book was 'IF I DID IT" any twisting of the title is nonsense or non truth.

who said anything about the 'title' of the book but you? LOL

[weezer]

le came to the house and talked to Sydney and oj and the situation was resolved so what we may think of the situation dosen't matter since we were not there and no charges were made. I think Sydney calmed down and went to bed.imo

reminds you of Nicole's calls for help doesn't it?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]]

Jules I have also thought about the children and how conflicted they must be..This case is a very very sad one in that they put the victim on trial..I read here often but never post. My feelings are strong and I don't want to argue a moot point. My prayers go out to Sydney and Justin :rose:for losing their mother and having to hear/read the negative things against her.

I think OJ did it but it is again a moot point in that the jury has already made their decisions and no amount of argument can take that back. We all must answer to a higher power and those who have been wronged will have justice then. That's just my opinion~Susie

The more I reflect upon your post the more I understand that it is the belief in God and that his punishment will be administered that allows some not to engage in victim bashing, show consideration for the children by not speaking ill of either parent and not to hate and to accept the verdict without making negative comments about those that rendered it. You simply stated your thought that Simpson did it without bashing anyone. I do believe that we will all one day stand before God and I fear that day. I sincerely hope that He, with his unlimited grace and mercy, will forgive me for all my sins. With that said, He may forgive some or all murderers and that will be His will. If that should happen, who among us has the audacity to call His judgment wrong?

[martin II]

reminds you of Nicole's calls for help doesn't it?

Nope

Your post here reminds me of how you try to twist facts of this situation to make it sound like something it was not.:cool:

[weezer]

Nope

Your post here reminds me of how you try to twist facts of this situation to make it sound like something it was not.:cool:

really?

"Nicole's 911 call of 1993
The following are excerpts from the two 911 calls Nicole Brown Simpson made to police on Oct. 25, 1993, from her townhouse.

NICOLE: Can you send someone to my house?
DISPATCHER: What's the problem there?
NICOLE: My ex-husband has just broken into my house and he's ranting and raving outside the front yard.
DISPATCHER: Has he been drinking or anything?
NICOLE: No. But he's crazy.
DISPATCHER: And you said he hasn't been drinking?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Did he hit you?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Do you have a restraining order against him?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: What's your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: And your address?
NICOLE: 325 Gretna Green Way.
DISPATCHER: Okay, we'll send the police out.
NICOLE: Nicole: Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Uh-huh.
(The dispatcher puts out a domestic violence call for any patrol car to respond to the address at Gretna Green. A short time later, Nicole Simpson called back.
NICOLE: Could you get somebody over here now, to ... Gretna Green. He's back. Please?
DISPATCHER: What does he look like?
NICOLE: He's O.J. Simpson. I think you know his record. Could you just send somebody over here?
DISPATCHER: What is he doing there?
NICOLE: He just drove up again. (She begins to cry) Could you just send somebody over?
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Wait a minute. What kind of car is he in?
NICOLE: He's in a white Bronco, but first of all he broke the back door down to get in."

[weezer]

Nope

Your post here reminds me of how you try to twist facts of this situation to make it sound like something it was not.:cool:

"SYDNEY SIMPSON: My dad is an (DELETED)!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the policeman. How may I help you?

SYDNEY SIMPSON: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sorry, I`m not understanding what you`re saying.

SYDNEY SIMPSON: He doesn`t (DELETED) love me or any of his kids!"

[William Anthony]

I would look at the difference in the wording in posts #11 and #21.

[martin II]

"SYDNEY SIMPSON: My dad is an (DELETED)!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the policeman. How may I help you?

SYDNEY SIMPSON: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sorry, I`m not understanding what you`re saying.

SYDNEY SIMPSON: He doesn`t (DELETED) love me or any of his kids!"

Normal for a teenager that can not get her way when a parent says no.
Parents of most teenagers know this.

One thing Simpson has done is raise his kids to be good people and i have seen nothing in their lives in the last 14 years to indicate that he as a single parent has not supported his children in their growth and education.They are young adults and can speak as they please.So far they seem to be doing quite well so i would not wish some trama on them or try to interject your preceived negative thoughts about their lives because of your feelings about Simpson.imo

[martin II]

I didn't say 'fights' -- I said altercations.

fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,293


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
I think the children are 18 and 19 and are both in college. one away from home and one close to Miami.

I have not read any report that either is anything but well adjusted people doing quite well. Denise Brown has confirmed this in her contact with them.

This in contrary to what some had expected or assumed the case would be
based on their opinions of Simpson.imo

Except for Sydney's fights at the school and with orenthal, I haven't heard anything else about them.

the kids are 20 and 23 --

[martin II]

really?

"Nicole's 911 call of 1993
The following are excerpts from the two 911 calls Nicole Brown Simpson made to police on Oct. 25, 1993, from her townhouse.

NICOLE: Can you send someone to my house?
DISPATCHER: What's the problem there?
NICOLE: My ex-husband has just broken into my house and he's ranting and raving outside the front yard.
DISPATCHER: Has he been drinking or anything?
NICOLE: No. But he's crazy.
DISPATCHER: And you said he hasn't been drinking?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Did he hit you?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Do you have a restraining order against him?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: What's your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: And your address?
NICOLE: 325 Gretna Green Way.
DISPATCHER: Okay, we'll send the police out.
NICOLE: Nicole: Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Uh-huh.
(The dispatcher puts out a domestic violence call for any patrol car to respond to the address at Gretna Green. A short time later, Nicole Simpson called back.
NICOLE: Could you get somebody over here now, to ... Gretna Green. He's back. Please?
DISPATCHER: What does he look like?
NICOLE: He's O.J. Simpson. I think you know his record. Could you just send somebody over here?
DISPATCHER: What is he doing there?
NICOLE: He just drove up again. (She begins to cry) Could you just send somebody over?
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Wait a minute. What kind of car is he in?
NICOLE: He's in a white Bronco, but first of all he broke the back door down to get in."


le came to GG .oj did not tough Nicole. Nicole did not make a complaint. oj left and so did le. a lot of yelling took place.

[Redmama]

Normal for a teenager that can not get her way when a parent says no.
Parents of most teenagers know this.

One thing Simpson has done is raise his kids to be good people and i have seen nothing in their lives in the last 14 years to indicate that he as a single parent has not supported his children in their growth and education.They are young adults and can speak as they please.So far they seem to be doing quite well so i would not wish some trama on them or try to interject your preceived negative thoughts about their lives because of your feelings about Simpson.imo

Not normal from my point of view. I do not know a single person who have had their kids call 911 on them.

[Jules100]

Not normal from my point of view. I do not know a single person who have had their kids call 911 on them.

Nikki Sixx of Motley Crue called the police on his mum when he was 14 just because he didn't get his own way - just thought i'd say:tongue:

[Redmama]

Nikki Sixx of Motley Crue called the police on his mum when he was 14 just because he didn't get his own way - just thought i'd say:tongue:

So now I do know somebody! Just being funny - hope it comes across that way!

[martin II]

So now I do know somebody! Just being funny - hope it comes across that way!

Some cities give out 800 numbers for children that feel they are abused by parents.When le came to ojs house as a result of his daughter call,they talked to her and determined that her father had the parental right to tell her no.They calmed her down and that was that.

I know many instances where teenagers claim their parents don't love them for not allowing them to have their way on some issues.

[martin II]

So now I do know somebody! Just being funny - hope it comes across that way!

which of your post are you referring to(funny) your first or your second.

[William Anthony]

Some cities give out 800 numbers for children that feel they are abused by parents.When le came to ojs house as a result of his daughter call,they talked to her and determined that her father had the parental right to tell her no.They calmed her down and that was that.

I know many instances where teenagers claim their parents don't love them for not allowing them to have their way on some issues.

If I had ever called the police on my parents, I am sure that I would not have gotten my way and would not have liked what I would have gotten. :)

[martin II]

If I had ever called the police on my parents, I am sure that I would not have gotten my way and would not have liked what I would have gotten. :)

MY nephew 16 told his mother that he was going to a party at 11:30 on the other side of town.she said no. he said 'I KNOW THE 800 NUMBER TO CALL ABOUT PARENTAL ABUSE' She said go on and call. when the police get here
you will be laid out on the floor and you will still not go to any party. He thought about it and then went to bed.

[martin II]

If I had ever called the police on my parents, I am sure that I would not have gotten my way and would not have liked what I would have gotten. :)

There were too many trees next to my house for me to even consider calling the police on my parents. hahaha

[Redmama]

If I had ever called the police on my parents, I am sure that I would not have gotten my way and would not have liked what I would have gotten. :)

I'm with you - I'd probably still be grounded from the phone and it is 30 years later!

[Redmama]

which of your post are you referring to(funny) your first or your second.

I was being funny in the post I said I was trying to be funny in - I can now say I know Nikki Sixx of Motley Crue ...

[weezer]

Normal for a teenager that can not get her way when a parent says no.
Parents of most teenagers know this.

One thing Simpson has done is raise his kids to be good people and i have seen nothing in their lives in the last 14 years to indicate that he as a single parent has not supported his children in their growth and education.They are young adults and can speak as they please.So far they seem to be doing quite well so i would not wish some trama on them or try to interject your preceived negative thoughts about their lives because of your feelings about Simpson.imo

OMG! please tell me that you do not think it is 'normal' for a kid to call 911 when they don't get their way. . . .

you have a distorted view of the world and people's behavior.

[martin II]

OMG! please tell me that you do not think it is 'normal' for a kid to call 911 when they don't get their way. . . .

you have a distorted view of the world and people's behavior.

It seems that every opinion different from yours is not just another opinion but a "DISTORTED" opinion.I dissagree with that. Not everyones life is like yours. That is what you seem to not understand.imo

[martin II]

OMG! please tell me that you do not think it is 'normal' for a kid to call 911 when they don't get their way. . . .

you have a distorted view of the world and people's behavior.

Some parents try to raise their children (teenagers) to make proper decisions and this requires that they have certain freedoms of actions.Some times teenager make wrong decisions or misunderstand the limits of that freedom.
They have been known to get out of line.So to speak.imo
That may sound distorted to you But that i cannot help you with.imo

[William Anthony]

I'm with you - I'd probably still be grounded from the phone and it is 30 years later!

I would have had terminal tree and phoneaphobia.:) Careful, you are telling your age.

[Redmama]

I would have had terminal tree and phoneaphobia.:) Careful, you are telling your age.

oooops - is that against the rules? It doesn't really matter - I'm older than dirt! Hee hee

[William Anthony]

oooops - is that against the rules? It doesn't really matter - I'm older than dirt! Hee hee

I think you are old enough to know the score and young enough to play in any game. :)

[Redmama]

I think you are old enough to know the score and young enough to play in any game. :)

I like that quote - I'm going to put that one in my memory banks and use that sometime - thanks!!

[tv]

Normal for a teenager that can not get her way when a parent says no.
Parents of most teenagers know this.

One thing Simpson has done is raise his kids to be good people and i have seen nothing in their lives in the last 14 years to indicate that he as a single parent has not supported his children in their growth and education.They are young adults and can speak as they please.So far they seem to be doing quite well so i would not wish some trama on them or try to interject your preceived negative thoughts about their lives because of your feelings about Simpson.imo

When a child calls 911 the way Sydney did there is an underlying problem. Whether she was justified in her anger at her father in this situation is unknown but the fact that she would involve LE when she knew the attention it would bring to the family means she was truly upset and in my opinion there was more that led up to it than simply not getting her way. I question why she mentioned her siblings if this was only about her father and herself. The idea that teenagers normally call 911 when they don't get their way is just not true. If that's the case the phone lines would be completely bogged down with calls from disgruntled teenagers.

I didn't see anyone wish trauma on the children. Did I miss something? Speaking of negative thoughts about them I seem to recall that some posters were willing to consider that Jason Simpson might be the killer of Ron and Nicole. It doesn't get any more negative than that.

[martin II]

When a child calls 911 the way Sydney did there is an underlying problem. Whether she was justified in her anger at her father in this situation is unknown but the fact that she would involve LE when she knew the attention it would bring to the family means she was truly upset and in my opinion there was more that led up to it than simply not getting her way. I question why she mentioned her siblings if this was only about her father and herself. The idea that teenagers normally call 911 when they don't get their way is just not true. If that's the case the phone lines would be completely bogged down with calls from disgruntled teenagers.

I didn't see anyone wish trauma on the children. Did I miss something? Speaking of negative thoughts about them I seem to recall that some posters were willing to consider that Jason Simpson might be the killer of Ron and Nicole. It doesn't get any more negative than that.


I think that if there had been serious validity to the claim that oj does not love his children etc then there would have been more than this one time call to 911 some years ago. As a teenager wanting to have her way i doubt she was at that moment acting as a adult and evaluationg what the results of her phone call may bring.

I don't know how many phone calls le gets on these kind of issues.

[tv]

I think that if there had been serious validity to the claim that oj does not love his children etc then there would have been more than this one time call to 911 some years ago. As a teenager wanting to have her way i doubt she was at that moment acting as a adult and evaluationg what the results of her phone call may bring.

I don't know how many phone calls le gets on these kind of issues.

I don't think he doesn't love his children but what matters is what Sydney thinks or thought at that time. The fact that she knew negative attention would come to the family and knowing the anger problems that her father has would have kept her from asking for help before that. I think she did think it through and was so upset at that time that she made the call. I'm sure Sydney is smart enough to know that a call to LE because she couldn't attend a party is not a valid reason to call so in my opinion there was more to it.

[martin II]

I don't think he doesn't love his children but what matters is what Sydney thinks or thought at that time. The fact that she knew negative attention would come to the family and knowing the anger problems that her father has would have kept her from asking for help before that. I think she did think it through and was so upset at that time that she made the call. I'm sure Sydney is smart enough to know that a call to LE because she couldn't attend a party is not a valid reason to call so in my opinion there was more to it.

The police that came to the house did not think so.

[limakey]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

Jules,

IMO, I think both Sydney and Justin long ago stopped caring what other people "think". They, Sydney and Justin "know" the story of their parents' relationship.

I also believe that Sydney and Justin were the most valuable witness' the DA's should have had, but they were not called to testify and as far as I know, the Browns' did not let them talk to the DA's. OJ would not allow his lawyers to involve his children.

Sydney did hear her mother crying and fighting on the phone with Faye that night. Sydney allegedly also heard the "hey, hey, hey" as well as the verbal arguement and it was not her father's voice.

And before any other poster goes a tad off the deep end about how cruel it would have been for Sydney or Justin to testify, please remember that other children, even younger have been called into testify against their parents. However, I do believe that any side who calls a child to the stand does risk upsetting a jury. It is risky move but it has been done before.

[tv]

Jules,

IMO, I think both Sydney and Justin long ago stopped caring what other people "think". They, Sydney and Justin "know" the story of their parents' relationship.

I also believe that Sydney and Justin were the most valuable witness' the DA's should have had, but they were not called to testify and as far as I know, the Browns' did not let them talk to the DA's. OJ would not allow his lawyers to involve his children.

Sydney did hear her mother crying and fighting on the phone with Faye that night. Sydney allegedly also heard the "hey, hey, hey" as well as the verbal arguement and it was not her father's voice.

And before any other poster goes a tad off the deep end about how cruel it would have been for Sydney or Justin to testify, please remember that other children, even younger have been called into testify against their parents. However, I do believe that any side who calls a child to the stand does risk upsetting a jury. It is risky move but it has been done before.

Do you know for sure it was Faye? It was my understanding that she was arguing with "someone".

[limakey]

Do you know for sure it was Faye? It was my understanding that she was arguing with "someone".

TV,

Yes, I do know for sure that it was Faye. However, Faye said that Nicole was "giggling" not crying.

When this first broke, Denise went on TV saying that Nicole did refer to OJ was "her best friend" when she didn't want the kids to know she was talking about or to OJ. However, I can't imagine using those terms as a cover to hide her anger in regards to OJ. She backed off when Faye said it was her.

[martin II]

Do you know for sure it was Faye? It was my understanding that she was arguing with "someone".

wrong
"it was momies friend."

[martin II]

TV,

Yes, I do know for sure that it was Faye. However, Faye said that Nicole was "giggling" not crying.

When this first broke, Denise went on TV saying that Nicole did refer to OJ was "her best friend" when she didn't want the kids to know she was talking about or to OJ. However, I can't imagine using those terms as a cover to hide her anger in regards to OJ. She backed off when Faye said it was her.

Denise lied about that.

[Redmama]

It seems that every opinion different from yours is not just another opinion but a "DISTORTED" opinion.I dissagree with that. Not everyones life is like yours. That is what you seem to not understand.imo

I know this post wasn't directed towards me, but I think I can add a bit of information about Teenagers and the use of 911. I've worked at the phone company for over 25 years. My job responsibilities include writing the requirements for how a call is routed and what type of equipment is needed for installation. I don't know of anything that my company has produced (report wise) that states that teenagers are an issue within call volumes. I can say in all the meetings that I have attended - or from any other communication - that teenage call volumes was an issue. There are many issues with children calling just to see what happens...or on accident...and actually the ones I have heard about were in the 8-10 age range. They were probably just being taught about 911. But I have honestly never heard about any issue with teenagers or calls by children calling about their parents.

Just my 2 cents worth - which really isn't worth all that much!

Wow - showing my age again (service of over 25 years.) I tell everyone that I started when I was 5...hmmmm...that would make me 30. I like that idea..but...my daughter just turned 21...can I just say I was mature for my age? OK I'm getting goofy - I better go to bed.

I'm wondering if my experience would qualify me as an expert - I doubt it - I've never even been called for jury duty.
Have an absolutely wonderful weekend everybody!
TGIF!

[martin II]

I don't think he doesn't love his children but what matters is what Sydney thinks or thought at that time. The fact that she knew negative attention would come to the family and knowing the anger problems that her father has would have kept her from asking for help before that. I think she did think it through and was so upset at that time that she made the call. I'm sure Sydney is smart enough to know that a call to LE because she couldn't attend a party is not a valid reason to call so in my opinion there was more to it.

sydney was a teenager. you sound like you are saying she was acting, thinking and evaluating the situation as a adult simple because of what you think of her father. Le came and talked to both of them, decided there no reason for any action and left. Sydney watched tv i guess.
imo

[martin II]

I know this post wasn't directed towards me, but I think I can add a bit of information about Teenagers and the use of 911. I've worked at the phone company for over 25 years. My job responsibilities include writing the requirements for how a call is routed and what type of equipment is needed for installation. I don't know of anything that my company has produced (report wise) that states that teenagers are an issue within call volumes. I can say in all the meetings that I have attended - or from any other communication - that teenage call volumes was an issue. There are many issues with children calling just to see what happens...or on accident...and actually the ones I have heard about were in the 8-10 age range. They were probably just being taught about 911. But I have honestly never heard about any issue with teenagers or calls by children calling about their parents.

Just my 2 cents worth - which really isn't worth all that much!

Wow - showing my age again (service of over 25 years.) I tell everyone that I started when I was 5...hmmmm...that would make me 30. I like that idea..but...my daughter just turned 21...can I just say I was mature for my age? OK I'm getting goofy - I better go to bed.

I'm wondering if my experience would qualify me as an expert - I doubt it - I've never even been called for jury duty.
Have an absolutely wonderful weekend everybody!
TGIF!

My indicating that i did not find sydneys call to 911 that unsual for a teenager and that i know of a case was not meant to say that there is a national telephone company problem.there is a 800 abuse number for children
so someone has given it some thought for some reason.

I think i understand your work as my sister in law set up long lines business service for a national phone company for 30 years.

[tv]

TV,

Yes, I do know for sure that it was Faye. However, Faye said that Nicole was "giggling" not crying.

When this first broke, Denise went on TV saying that Nicole did refer to OJ was "her best friend" when she didn't want the kids to know she was talking about or to OJ. However, I can't imagine using those terms as a cover to hide her anger in regards to OJ. She backed off when Faye said it was her.I have no problem believing she talked to Faye and was giggling during the conversation but I think the conversation that Sydney overheard was just what she said it was...an argument with Nicole crying. I think it's very possible she was talking to her killer, OJ Simpson.

[tv]

sydney was a teenager. you sound like you are saying she was acting, thinking and evaluating the situation as a adult simple because of what you think of her father. Le came and talked to both of them, decided there no reason for any action and left. Sydney watched tv i guess.
imo

No, that's not what I'm saying. I already said that what happened that night may have been a father not letting a child do something he doesn't approve of. I'm just saying I think there was more to it or that there was a history leading up to it.

There have been a lot of reports of children evaluating situations and appropriately calling 911. You don't have to be an adult to know when you have an emergency.

[martin II]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I already said that what happened that night may have been a father not letting a child do something he doesn't approve of. I'm just saying I think there was more to it or that there was a history leading up to it.

There have been a lot of reports of children evaluating situations and appropriately calling 911. You don't have to be an adult to know when you have an emergency.

I can only speak of what has been made public as i don't live in ojs house.

Her 911 call at that time is the only incident that i have read about.Since that time no other report has been made so i am not able to agree that there must have been more to it or some history. Le came to the house and questioned both as to the motivation for the call. Finding no emergency for the call they talked to both and left.

I don't find it unusual that a teenager thought that her father not allowing her to go to a party was a emergency.imo

[martin II]

I have no problem believing she talked to Faye and was giggling during the conversation but I think the conversation that Sydney overheard was just what she said it was...an argument with Nicole crying. I think it's very possible she was talking to her killer, OJ Simpson.

It is also very possible that when sydney said Talking to mommies friend she was identifying Faye.I do believe sydney would refer to Oj as dad.

[weezer]

Do you know for sure it was Faye? It was my understanding that she was arguing with "someone".

IIRC, Sydney said 'mommy's friend' -- Faye testified that she and Nicole were giggling during their phone call so. . . We do know that orenthal called Nicole and then said he only talked to Sydney -- wonder why he thought it necessary to make that a point?

I'd like to see anything that is proof that the kids heard the 'hey, hey, hey' and/or that the Browns kept LE from talking to the children.

[martin II]

IIRC, Sydney said 'mommy's friend' -- Faye testified that she and Nicole were giggling during their phone call so. . . We do know that orenthal called Nicole and then said he only talked to Sydney -- wonder why he thought it necessary to make that a point?

I'd like to see anything that is proof that the kids heard the 'hey, hey, hey' and/or that the Browns kept LE from talking to the children.

I don't think oj and nicole did too much talking at the recital although they were sitting close to each other. So that would support the idea that he only spoke to sydney when he called her house. i guess he was asked did he speak to nicole and he gave that answer.

The children were at the Browns. i don't think they were questioned there.

[tv]

I don't think oj and nicole did too much talking at the recital although they were sitting close to each other. So that would support the idea that he only spoke to sydney when he called her house. i guess he was asked did he speak to nicole and he gave that answer.

The children were at the Browns. i don't think they were questioned there.I think the fact that they didn't talk much at the recital makes it more likely that he did argue with Nicole on the phone. He may have only talked to Sydney when he called and asked for her but that doesn't mean that he didn't make another call to Nicole.

[martin II]

I think the fact that they didn't talk much at the recital makes it more likely that he did argue with Nicole on the phone. He may have only talked to Sydney when he called and asked for her but that doesn't mean that he didn't make another call to Nicole.

I only know of the phone calls that were reported.
It is quite easy for one to create stuff to support ones opinions even when there is no proof.

[tv]

IIRC, Sydney said 'mommy's friend' -- Faye testified that she and Nicole were giggling during their phone call so. . . We do know that orenthal called Nicole and then said he only talked to Sydney -- wonder why he thought it necessary to make that a point?

I'd like to see anything that is proof that the kids heard the 'hey, hey, hey' and/or that the Browns kept LE from talking to the children.

Poor Sydney can't get any credibility. First, she supposedly mistakes giggling for crying then as a teenager she calls 911 because she doesn't get her way. Sorry, but my money is on Sydney in both cases. I see no reason to believe Simpson when he says he didn't talk to Nicole. He has every reason to lie about arguing with her.

[martin II]

I think the fact that they didn't talk much at the recital makes it more likely that he did argue with Nicole on the phone. He may have only talked to Sydney when he called and asked for her but that doesn't mean that he didn't make another call to Nicole.

If we are just making up stuff how about it could have been one of Fays people that nicole wrote about in her letter to Cora that she said she did not like or was afraid of, looking for Faye after she ran to the protection of the rehab place.

[tv]

I only know of the phone calls that were reported.
It is quite easy for one to create stuff to support ones opinions even when there is no proof.

Sydney says Nicole was crying on the phone and I believe her. Faye says they were giggling and I believe her also. That means to me that she spoke to someone else who upset her.

[tv]

If we are just making up stuff how about it could have been one of Fays people that nicole wrote about in her letter to Cora that she said she did not like or was afraid of, looking for Faye after she ran to the protection of the rehab place.Or we could talk about Gus and K2 -- one of your pet theories that has no basis in fact.

[weezer]

If we are just making up stuff how about it could have been one of Fays people that nicole wrote about in her letter to Cora that she said she did not like or was afraid of, looking for Faye after she ran to the protection of the rehab place.

we don't have to guess who Nicole was afraid of -- we know:

"Q: Okay. Now, Nicole also told you in the last few weeks of her life that she had a fear of Mr. Simpson. Correct?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: She -- yes."

[weezer]

"Q: Now, and it's true that you told Barbara Walters that Nicole was very fearful of O.J. Correct?

A: Very fearful?

Q: Yes. Those are your words. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Correct? Now, in fact Nicole told you, "Oh, I'm so scared of O.J. I'm so scared of O.J.," didn't she?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Correct?

A: "I'm so scared of O.J."?

Q: "I'm so scared of O.J." Those are the words of Nicole that she told you. Correct?

A: Yes."

[tv]

Thanks weezer. It's always good to remember who Nicole was really afraid of instead of saying that the murderer was part of the "world of Faye Resnick", in particular, the idea that Faye went to rehab for protection. It's well-known that her friends talked her into going because she needed help.

The only relationship that the murderer had with Faye Resnick is that he was the ex-husband of her friend, Nicole.

[martin II]

Or we could talk about Gus and K2 -- one of your pet theories that has no basis in fact.

I think you mean Wagners theory. Yep it is possible since you don't know who actually called hahaha

[martin II]

"Q: Now, and it's true that you told Barbara Walters that Nicole was very fearful of O.J. Correct?

A: Very fearful?

Q: Yes. Those are your words. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Correct? Now, in fact Nicole told you, "Oh, I'm so scared of O.J. I'm so scared of O.J.," didn't she?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Correct?

A: "I'm so scared of O.J."?

Q: "I'm so scared of O.J." Those are the words of Nicole that she told you. Correct?

A: Yes."

This is Coras testimony i think the lady who you called a *****

Did she say this before or after she wrote that letter to oj begging him to allow her to come back home?

[martin II]

"Q: Now, and it's true that you told Barbara Walters that Nicole was very fearful of O.J. Correct?

A: Very fearful?

Q: Yes. Those are your words. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Correct? Now, in fact Nicole told you, "Oh, I'm so scared of O.J. I'm so scared of O.J.," didn't she?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Correct?

A: "I'm so scared of O.J."?

Q: "I'm so scared of O.J." Those are the words of Nicole that she told you. Correct?

A: Yes."

I think you are ot now but if we are now talking about Coras testimony,i will see if i have more of her comments about Nicole for you.

[martin II]

Thanks weezer. It's always good to remember who Nicole was really afraid of instead of saying that the murderer was part of the "world of Faye Resnick", in particular, the idea that Faye went to rehab for protection. It's well-known that her friends talked her into going because she needed help.

The only relationship that the murderer had with Faye Resnick is that he was the ex-husband of her friend, Nicole.

Faye Resnick need help long before a few days before Nicole was killed.She just didn't accept it until a few days before Nicole was killed. When the murders happened she was in the safety of the rehab center.imo

[tv]

I think you mean Wagners theory. Yep it is possible since you don't know who actually called hahaha

Neither do you hahaha.

[tv]

I think you are ot now but if we are now talking about Coras testimony,i will see if i have more of her comments about Nicole for you.

You took it off topic when you mentioned the letter.

[weezer]

This is Coras testimony i think the lady who you called a *****

Did she say this before or after she wrote that letter to oj begging him to allow her to come back home?

re-read the testimony -- it was in the weeks just before orenthal murdered her. how I feel about cora isn't relevent since this is someone you obviously believe so I assume you also believe this part of her testimony.

[weezer]

Faye Resnick need help long before a few days before Nicole was killed.She just didn't accept it until a few days before Nicole was killed. When the murders happened she was in the safety of the rehab center.imo

it was orenthal who had been under court order for bad behavior -- not faye resnick. besides, orenthal didn't murder faye, he murdered Ron and Nicole.

[weezer]

Neither do you hahaha.

nope -- but what he knows is it couldn't have been orenthal! go figure.

[martin II]

it was orenthal who had been under court order for bad behavior -- not faye resnick. besides, orenthal didn't murder faye, he murdered Ron and Nicole.


Fay Resnick should have been in jail for freebasing cocain at nicoles house.There was testimony that she claimed nicole did it also.
But with nicole complaining that she was concerned that bad people were comming to her house to see Faye and then Faye jumps into rehab just before nicole was killed because of her drug addition, the phone call could have been made by any number of bad people.imo

[weezer]

Fay Resnick should have been in jail for freebasing cocain at nicoles house.There was testimony that she claimed nicole did it also.
But with nicole complaining that she was concerned that bad people were comming to her house to see Faye and then Faye jumps into rehab just before nicole was killed because of her drug addition, the phone call could have been made by any number of bad people.imo

I'll just quote your earlier post: ". . .If we are just making up stuff how. . ." and say it was orenthal -- the man who tormented, stalked, and abused her for 17 years.

[limakey]

Sydney says Nicole was crying on the phone and I believe her. Faye says they were giggling and I believe her also. That means to me that she spoke to someone else who upset her.

TV,

Sydney never said that Nicole was giggling with Faye. She said that Nicole was crying and fighting with her best friend. It was Faye who said that Nicole was giggling. As Simpson pointed out, Sydney is a very smart girl, she would know the difference between her mother's cry and "giggling". He also made another point, Nicole "didn't giggle". It wasn't her.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that Faye was in rehab for about 4 days---there is no way that Faye would be in an "up" mood, looking so bright at everything. She fought against going into rehab. She was still saying her drug problem was under control

I also find it odd that Faye was even allowed to make a phone call to the "outside" world let alone make one to a "friend". Unless the rules of rehab have changed, as in cutting off the outside world to force the person to focus on their problem as well as cutting them off from friends who may or not be using drugs.

While I agree with you that Sydney's reasoning for calling the cops for not getting her way doesn't make much sense on the surface, but we have no idea how often this does happen and it is not covered by the media. I do remember watching a show on 911 calls, where adults have called 911 to confirm the time or a weather report. If adults can abuse the 911 system to find out what time it is, I have no problem believing that a very upset teenager would call 911 for many reasons that did not warrant the cops being called. However, she did call and the cops responded and found nothing that required their attention.

IMO, if Nicole was figthing on the crying on the phone with Simpson, Sydney would have taken the stand.

Also, you forget that one witness came forward and did testify that Nicole was not only upset but was convinced that Simpson would take his revenge that night but this witness did not testify in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

I'll just quote your earlier post: ". . .If we are just making up stuff how. . ." and say it was orenthal -- the man who tormented, stalked, and abused her for 17 years.

There was no proof in the trial that oj stalked nicole for 17 years. It is easy to say that but harder to prove your statement is true.That is what i call making stuff up. haha

[martin II]

it was orenthal who had been under court order for bad behavior -- not faye resnick. besides, orenthal didn't murder faye, he murdered Ron and Nicole.

The jury decided that the prosecution made that claim and did not prove it.So your claim is a opinion.

[limakey]

Thanks weezer. It's always good to remember who Nicole was really afraid of instead of saying that the murderer was part of the "world of Faye Resnick", in particular, the idea that Faye went to rehab for protection. It's well-known that her friends talked her into going because she needed help.

The only relationship that the murderer had with Faye Resnick is that he was the ex-husband of her friend, Nicole.

TV,

Did you notice that Petrocelli never asked what that "fear" was? IMO, I think Nicole was afraid of OJ perhaps taking away her children because of her life style. Remember in one of the letters she wrote, she said that if she was not afraid of losing her children, she would go out and sleep with everyone of OJ's friends to let him know how much it hurt.

And before anyone says I am ignoring OJ's sleeping around, I am not. Women do not get a free pass on cheating as men do. In fact the only time it seems to count againist a man is when the wife or ex shows up dead or he is the President of the United States.

Also, Faye was petrified in the last weeks of Nicole's life. She begged Nicole to leave the kids to leave the country. I don't think thats make any sense unless Faye was petrified of someone other then OJ Simpson and she knew that she put Nicole's life in danager. IMO.

[limakey]

There was no proof in the trial that oj stalked nicole for 17 years. It is easy to say that but harder to prove your statement is true.That is what i call making stuff up. haha

Martin,

I totally agree with your post. In fact, we do know that Nicole was being followed and it was not by OJ Simpson. Nicole apparently did tell her mother that she was being followed by Simpson yet the person who was following her was doing so in Paula's Bronco. She has no idea, nor do we how long she was being followed and when this person or other persons used a car that was not a look alike for a Bronco. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Sydney never said that Nicole was giggling with Faye. She said that Nicole was crying and fighting with her best friend. It was Faye who said that Nicole was giggling. As Simpson pointed out, Sydney is a very smart girl, she would know the difference between her mother's cry and "giggling". He also made another point, Nicole "didn't giggle". It wasn't her.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that Faye was in rehab for about 4 days---there is no way that Faye would be in an "up" mood, looking so bright at everything. She fought against going into rehab. She was still saying her drug problem was under control

I also find it odd that Faye was even allowed to make a phone call to the "outside" world let alone make one to a "friend". Unless the rules of rehab have changed, as in cutting off the outside world to force the person to focus on their problem as well as cutting them off from friends who may or not be using drugs.

While I agree with you that Sydney's reasoning for calling the cops for not getting her way doesn't make much sense on the surface, but we have no idea how often this does happen and it is not covered by the media. I do remember watching a show on 911 calls, where adults have called 911 to confirm the time or a weather report. If adults can abuse the 911 system to find out what time it is, I have no problem believing that a very upset teenager would call 911 for many reasons that did not warrant the cops being called. However, she did call and the cops responded and found nothing that required their attention.

IMO, if Nicole was figthing on the crying on the phone with Simpson, Sydney would have taken the stand.

Also, you forget that one witness came forward and did testify that Nicole was not only upset but was convinced that Simpson would take his revenge that night but this witness did not testify in the criminal trial.

You can speculate all you want that Nicole didn't giggle but if you're taking Simpson's word for that I'd take it with a grain of salt. Everyone giggles at some time or another. I don't think Faye Resnick or anyone connected to her killed Ron and Nicole. I don't think Sydney heard a conversation between Faye and Nicole. I don't think Sydney knew the identity of the person Nicole was arguing with on the phone and that's why there's endless speculation on who it was depending on who you think the killer is.

I've said that on the night that Sydney called 911 she may have been upset because her father wouldn't let her do something she wanted to do. I'm sure if the police had felt there was a need to take action they would have. However, I think there was more to it that the police were not aware of or there was a history leading up to it.

[tv]

There was no proof in the trial that oj stalked nicole for 17 years. It is easy to say that but harder to prove your statement is true.That is what i call making stuff up. hahaThere's also no proof that anyone besides Orenthal James Simpson killed Ron and Nicole while there is plenty that points to him as the killer.

[martin II]

You can speculate all you want that Nicole didn't giggle but if you're taking Simpson's word for that I'd take it with a grain of salt. Everyone giggles at some time or another. I don't think Faye Resnick or anyone connected to her killed Ron and Nicole. I don't think Sydney heard a conversation between Faye and Nicole. I don't think Sydney knew the identity of the person Nicole was arguing with on the phone and that's why there's endless speculation on who it was depending on who you think the killer is.

I've said that on the night that Sydney called 911 she may have been upset because her father wouldn't let her do something she wanted to do. I'm sure if the police had felt there was a need to take action they would have. However, I think there was more to it that the police were not aware of or there was a history leading up to it.

Well give some proof that there was a history and i may agree.

[martin II]

There's also no proof that anyone besides Orenthal James Simpson killed Ron and Nicole while there is plenty that points to him as the killer.

One of the cornerstones of the prosecutions claims was that jo killed Nicile and Ron, came home, jumped the south fence and dropped the glove.Three le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped the fence and there was no evidence found that oj was in the south walkway
on 6/12. So the priosecution did not prove this claim.imo

[tv]

TV,

Did you notice that Petrocelli never asked what that "fear" was? IMO, I think Nicole was afraid of OJ perhaps taking away her children because of her life style. Remember in one of the letters she wrote, she said that if she was not afraid of losing her children, she would go out and sleep with everyone of OJ's friends to let him know how much it hurt.

And before anyone says I am ignoring OJ's sleeping around, I am not. Women do not get a free pass on cheating as men do. In fact the only time it seems to count againist a man is when the wife or ex shows up dead or he is the President of the United States.

Also, Faye was petrified in the last weeks of Nicole's life. She begged Nicole to leave the kids to leave the country. I don't think thats make any sense unless Faye was petrified of someone other then OJ Simpson and she knew that she put Nicole's life in danager. IMO.

I doubt that Simpson wanted the children before Nicole's death. He was an absentee father and some people close to him were surprised that he even showed up for the recital on the night of the murders.

Nicole said more than once that Simpson would kill her so there is no question what she feared. If her believing that he would kill her with scissors isn't fear then what is? Faye's boyfriend at the time of the murders, Christian Reichardt, testified that he knew of no one that Nicole and Faye were associating with that might be dangerous or of anyone that had threatened them.

[tv]

One of the cornerstones of the prosecutions claims was that jo killed Nicile and Ron, came home, jumped the south fence and dropped the glove.Three le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped the fence and there was no evidence found that oj was in the south walkway
on 6/12. So the priosecution did not prove this claim.imo

Whether he jumped the fence, entered through the gate or rode in on a donkey makes no difference as to whether or not he is the killer. It's funny that you believe the detectives when they say something that fits into your theory of OJ Simpson being innocent of the murders but when you disagree with them they are a bunch of liars and evidence planters and tamperers.

[tv]

Well give some proof that there was a history and i may agree.I've already stated it's my opinion.

[martin II]

Whether he jumped the fence, entered through the gate or rode in on a donkey makes no difference as to whether or not he is the killer. It's funny that you believe the detectives when they say something that fits into your theory of OJ Simpson being innocent of the murders but when you disagree with them they are a bunch of liars and evidence planters and tamperers.

Well If the glove got to the walkway and oj was not in the walkway. SOMETHING WRONG

I evaluate le detectives testimony as i do all testimony. I accept what makes sense and reject what does not. I reject Vanhatters lie that oj was not a suspect and the lie he told the search warrant judge. Since no one presented believable testimony or evidence that oj was in the south walkway on 6/12 i go with vanhatters and the other three detectives testimony that NO one jumped any south walkway fence.imo

[tv]

Well If the glove got to the walkway and oj was not in the walkway. SOMETHING WRONG

I evaluate le detectives testimony as i do all testimony. I accept what makes sense and reject what does not. I reject Vanhatters lie that oj was not a suspect and the lie he told the search warrant judge. Since no one presented believable testimony or evidence that oj was in the south walkway on 6/12 i go with vanhatters and the other three detectives testimony that NO one jumped any south walkway fence.imoYes, there is proof. His blood was on the glove found behind Kato's room. For heaven's sake, martin.

[martin II]

Yes, there is proof. His blood was on the glove found behind Kato's room. For heaven's sake, martin.

A glove was 'FOUND' by furhman the admitted liar that had blood on it in the south walkway.Now prove that it was oj that put the glove there.Not maby. not must have. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. imo

[tv]

A glove was 'FOUND' by furhman the admitted liar that had blood on it in the south walkway.Now prove that it was oj that put the glove there.Not maby. not must have. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. imo

Considering that the blood would have had to come from OJ Simpson's body to be deposited on the glove I have no doubt that he dropped it there. The glove was collected before Simpson gave his blood sample...do you think Mark Fuhrman is a magician? There is zero proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room. DNA leaves no room for doubt.

[martin II]

Considering that the blood would have had to come from OJ Simpson's body to be deposited on the glove I have no doubt that he dropped it there. The glove was collected before Simpson gave his blood sample...do you think Mark Fuhrman is a magician? There is zero proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room. DNA leaves no room for doubt.

Whether you have NO DOUBT is not proof of anything but what you think.That was not enough for the jury and others to believe.The jury was looking for proof that oj was behind Katos wall and the prosecution only gave their opinion. They did not prove it.

Mazzola testified that she collected blood, put the samples in bindels initialed all of them and turned them in. In court when presented with bindels that were suppose to be the ones she collected, her initials were not on the bindels. when asked why her response was "I DON'T KNOW"

So the question became, were the bindels she collected and initialed the same bindels presented to her in court, or were they some substitute bindels.

I believe the jury had serious quesitons on this critical issue.
imo

[tv]

Whether you have NO DOUBT is not proof of anything but what you think.That was not enough for the jury and others to believe.The jury was looking for proof that oj was behind Katos wall and the prosecution only gave their opinion. They did not prove it.

Mazzola testified that she collected blood, put the samples in bindels initialed all of them and turned them in. In court when presented with bindels that were suppose to be the ones she collected, her initials were not on the bindels. when asked why her response was "I DON'T KNOW"

So the question became, were the bindels she collected and initialed the same bindels presented to her in court, or were they some substitute bindels.

I believe the jury had serious quesitons on this critical issue.
imo

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove is only one of the things that convinces me beyond a doubt. Any doubt. martin, you didn't think one of us was going to persuade the other, do you? ;)

Back to the children...if we're talking about all the children and not just Sydney and Justin...I have always felt bad for Jason. I remember how upset he was when Simpson and Al Cowlings arrived back at Rockingham after the Bronco chase. I think the younger children were insulated from what was going on but Jason must have felt like his world was falling apart.

[limakey]

I doubt that Simpson wanted the children before Nicole's death. He was an absentee father and some people close to him were surprised that he even showed up for the recital on the night of the murders.

Nicole said more than once that Simpson would kill her so there is no question what she feared. If her believing that he would kill her with scissors isn't fear then what is? Faye's boyfriend at the time of the murders, Christian Reichardt, testified that he knew of no one that Nicole and Faye were associating with that might be dangerous or of anyone that had threatened them.

TV,

I don't think there is any evidence that Simpson did not want his children before Nicole's death. However, even if that was the case, that does not mean that he would have been the first or would have been the last man who didn't really want their children but used that as a threat against a mother. I don't think it has been that long ago when a woman would lose custody of her children because she had an affair. IMO, deep down inside, I don't think we have come all that far when it comes to issues like this.

The problem with believing Faye is that the Brown sisters came out and said that Sydney did hear the crying and fighting--no giggling. However, they tried to say this was Simpson. When Faye was cornered, she admitted it was her but Nicole was giggling. IMO, I think Sydney would know the difference, I think Sydney does know who it was and if was Simpson, the DA's would have had her on the stand.

I believe the only people who questioned the children about what they saw and heard were the Browns. They later said that the children were seen by a professional and they saw nothing and heard nothing. But that makes no sense because they already said what Sydney heard.

While I know it is impossible for you to believe in anything Simpson says, just think about this for a moment. What if Sydney did hear her mother crying when talking with Faye--but what if the fighting she heard was between the two men and it wasn't her father's voice? Doesn't only make sense that not only would Simpson ensure that Sydney never took the stand but also the Browns?

One last point, it seems to me that what ever Sydney heard, she did go to her mother and ask her what was going on. Nicole's responded that she was talking to her best friend. If that is what happened, then Sydney actually saw her mother's face and tears. I think Sydney would have known difference between tears of laughter and tears of anger or fear. Again, IMO.

[tv]

TV,

I don't think there is any evidence that Simpson did not want his children before Nicole's death. However, even if that was the case, that does not mean that he would have been the first or would have been the last man who didn't really want their children but used that as a threat against a mother. I don't think it has been that long ago when a woman would lose custody of her children because she had an affair. IMO, deep down inside, I don't think we have come all that far when it comes to issues like this.

The problem with believing Faye is that the Brown sisters came out and said that Sydney did hear the crying and fighting--no giggling. However, they tried to say this was Simpson. When Faye was cornered, she admitted it was her but Nicole was giggling. IMO, I think Sydney would know the difference, I think Sydney does know who it was and if was Simpson, the DA's would have had her on the stand.

I believe the only people who questioned the children about what they saw and heard were the Browns. They later said that the children were seen by a professional and they saw nothing and heard nothing. But that makes no sense because they already said what Sydney heard.

While I know it is impossible for you to believe in anything Simpson says, just think about this for a moment. What if Sydney did hear her mother crying when talking with Faye--but what if the fighting she heard was between the two men and it wasn't her father's voice? Doesn't only make sense that not only would Simpson ensure that Sydney never took the stand but also the Browns?

One last point, it seems to me that what ever Sydney heard, she did go to her mother and ask her what was going on. Nicole's responded that she was talking to her best friend. If that is what happened, then Sydney actually saw her mother's face and tears. I think Sydney would have known difference between tears of laughter and tears of anger or fear. Again, IMO.

I can't believe that a child Sydney's age would mistake two men arguing for her mother crying. That's too much of a stretch. It makes perfect sense to me that Nicole wouldn't tell Sydney she was fighting with her father to keep from upsetting her.

When I said that Simpson didn't want the children I meant he didn't want custody of them. I don't doubt he loves them in whatever way he's capable of loving but his lifestyle at that time was too busy to properly accomodate the children full time. Since the trial he's had a little more time on his hands.

[limakey]

I can't believe that a child Sydney's age would mistake two men arguing for her mother crying. That's too much of a stretch. It makes perfect sense to me that Nicole wouldn't tell Sydney she was fighting with her father to keep from upsetting her.

When I said that Simpson didn't want the children I meant he didn't want custody of them. I don't doubt he loves them in whatever way he's capable of loving but his lifestyle at that time was too busy to properly accomodate the children full time. Since the trial he's had a little more time on his hands.


TV,

I don't think I am being clear. Sydney hearing her mother crying is one thing she heard that night. Another thing she has said to have heard was the "hey, hey, hey" and two men fighting. I never heard or read that Sydney heard the "hey, hey, hey" and two men fighting until I read "Killing Time". These are two separate incidents--sorry for any confusion on this.

I think there is enough evidence to suggest, that OJ and Nicole fought, that either they forgot or did not care if the kids heard them fighting. While I don't think it is a proud moment in any parent's life when they hear fights, they do happen. In my case, I never heard my parents fight, however, I could tell when they had fights---it suddenly got very cold inside the house.

Our children know us a lot better then we give them credit for.

While Lange did say that Sydney did overhear her mother fighting and crying on the phone, we don't know what she overheard as in what the fight was about or how she identified that person was Faye. During the fight or the tears did Nicole use that person's name?

The only reason why I believe that Nicole was not fighting with OJ on the phone is because if it was OJ and Sydney heard it, she would have taken the stand---the DA's would have been forced to after Denise's and Candace Garvey's testimony about Simpson's demeaner that night was crushed by the video tape. The DA's never came close as to what the "trigger" that night was. Saying it was because Nicole was "mean" to him at the recital or that he wasn't invited to dinner, just doesn't work for me.

[limakey]

TV,

I do agree with your comments about why Simpson may not have been able to take the children because of his schedule. However, I do believe Simpson is from the generation where kids belong with their mother unless the mother can't handle them anymore--as in the case of Jason Simpson.

I think that many father's believe their sole role in parenting is support and discipline. Again, I am dating myself!

[martin II]

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove is only one of the things that convinces me beyond a doubt. Any doubt. martin, you didn't think one of us was going to persuade the other, do you? ;)

Back to the children...if we're talking about all the children and not just Sydney and Justin...I have always felt bad for Jason. I remember how upset he was when Simpson and Al Cowlings arrived back at Rockingham after the Bronco chase. I think the younger children were insulated from what was going on but Jason must have felt like his world was falling apart.

I think that the two children living with Nicole and nicole and oj were in a better position to see the behavior of oj and of Nicole and this may have influenced their decision to tell the custody judge that they did not want to live with the browns but with their father.imo

[martin II]

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove is only one of the things that convinces me beyond a doubt. Any doubt. martin, you didn't think one of us was going to persuade the other, do you? ;)

Back to the children...if we're talking about all the children and not just Sydney and Justin...I have always felt bad for Jason. I remember how upset he was when Simpson and Al Cowlings arrived back at Rockingham after the Bronco chase. I think the younger children were insulated from what was going on but Jason must have felt like his world was falling apart.

There has to be proof that oj was in the south walkway to drop the glove as the prosecution claimed. without this proof their story is not believable.

[martin II]

TV,

I do agree with your comments about why Simpson may not have been able to take the children because of his schedule. However, I do believe Simpson is from the generation where kids belong with their mother unless the mother can't handle them anymore--as in the case of Jason Simpson.

I think that many father's believe their sole role in parenting is support and discipline. Again, I am dating myself!

I think oj thought Niciole was a good mother and took great care of the kids.Before her death oj was ruinning around the country working to support the family as he was the only one willing to work.

He faught for ghis kids in the custody case and has done a very great job of raising then since then. So to say he did not want the kids is a streatch.imo

[martin II]

TV,

I don't think I am being clear. Sydney hearing her mother crying is one thing she heard that night. Another thing she has said to have heard was the "hey, hey, hey" and two men fighting. I never heard or read that Sydney heard the "hey, hey, hey" and two men fighting until I read "Killing Time". These are two separate incidents--sorry for any confusion on this.

I think there is enough evidence to suggest, that OJ and Nicole fought, that either they forgot or did not care if the kids heard them fighting. While I don't think it is a proud moment in any parent's life when they hear fights, they do happen. In my case, I never heard my parents fight, however, I could tell when they had fights---it suddenly got very cold inside the house.

Our children know us a lot better then we give them credit for.

While Lange did say that Sydney did overhear her mother fighting and crying on the phone, we don't know what she overheard as in what the fight was about or how she identified that person was Faye. During the fight or the tears did Nicole use that person's name?

The only reason why I believe that Nicole was not fighting with OJ on the phone is because if it was OJ and Sydney heard it, she would have taken the stand---the DA's would have been forced to after Denise's and Candace Garvey's testimony about Simpson's demeaner that night was crushed by the video tape. The DA's never came close as to what the "trigger" that night was. Saying it was because Nicole was "mean" to him at the recital or that he wasn't invited to dinner, just doesn't work for me.

Didn't some social worker type call nicole on 6/12 and offer to sit with her if she was afraid of something and nicole refused this help?
I have also lost track of when, what time , that Doctor came to pick uop his child from nicoles house on 6/12

[martin II]

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove is only one of the things that convinces me beyond a doubt. Any doubt. martin, you didn't think one of us was going to persuade the other, do you? ;)

Back to the children...if we're talking about all the children and not just Sydney and Justin...I have always felt bad for Jason. I remember how upset he was when Simpson and Al Cowlings arrived back at Rockingham after the Bronco chase. I think the younger children were insulated from what was going on but Jason must have felt like his world was falling apart.

If there is no proof that oj was in the south walkway where the glove was found then it had to have been put there by someone else. If someone else put the glove there then it was put there to involve oj or tie him to the murders for some reason. If this is true then the blood evidence is suspect and the samples sent out for DNA testing questionable. imo
Saying he must have put the glove there is not enough.

[Redmama]

My indicating that i did not find sydneys call to 911 that unsual for a teenager and that i know of a case was not meant to say that there is a national telephone company problem.there is a 800 abuse number for children
so someone has given it some thought for some reason.

I think i understand your work as my sister in law set up long lines business service for a national phone company for 30 years.

I understood that you believed children calling 911 on their parents is a normal, everyday occurence. I can tell you from my experience it is not. Child abuse 800 numbers are a different issue.

[martin II]

I understood that you believed children calling 911 on their parents is a normal, everyday occurence. I can tell you from my experience it is not. Child abuse 800 numbers are a different issue.

Maby i did not make myself clear for you.

I don't think i said children calling 911 on their parents was a everday occurance.

I said that i don't think it strange that sydney a teenager ,wanting to have her way about going to a party would be come angry and call 911 and claim some wrongdoing by her father. That i knew of another instance where a teenager had threatened to call a 800 number to report a parent not allowing him to go out late at night.I hope this is clear on what my position is.

Obviously my experneice or opinion on this issue is different then yours.If you are going to state my positions it may be more accurate if you just cut & paste my comments rather giving a opinion of what i have stated.
If any coments i have made needs clearing up i can do that.
Thanks.

PS
I think that children that may have access to the 800 abuse number would use it. Those that don't would use the more common number for help 911.
That is my opinion.

[tv]

If there is no proof that oj was in the south walkway where the glove was found then it had to have been put there by someone else. If someone else put the glove there then it was put there to involve oj or tie him to the murders for some reason. If this is true then the blood evidence is suspect and the samples sent out for DNA testing questionable. imo
Saying he must have put the glove there is not enough.Saying someone else put it there is not enough. Where is the proof?

[tv]

I think oj thought Niciole was a good mother and took great care of the kids.Before her death oj was ruinning around the country working to support the family as he was the only one willing to work.

He faught for ghis kids in the custody case and has done a very great job of raising then since then. So to say he did not want the kids is a streatch.imomartin, I'll say this again -- I said he didn't want custody before Nicole's murder because of his busy lifestyle. I said "didn't want" but I clarified what I meant. I notice that even though I have said Simpson loves his children you managed to get in a slam against Nicole.
You act like he was working two jobs for minimum wage to keep shoes on the family. He was a wealthy man and if Nicole didn't work, so what?

[tv]

I think that the two children living with Nicole and nicole and oj were in a better position to see the behavior of oj and of Nicole and this may have influenced their decision to tell the custody judge that they did not want to live with the browns but with their father.imo
It's only natural the children would want to live with their father. What's your point?

[weezer]

It's only natural the children would want to live with their father. What's your point?

did the kids make the decision where they would live?

[tv]

did the kids make the decision where they would live?Good point. Sometimes I actually buy into the misleading information I read on here.

[William Anthony]

Good point. Sometimes I actually buy into the misleading information I read on here.

I have addressed that issue with one particular poster and it is alright if you at some point were deceived.

[tv]

I have addressed that issue with one particular poster and it is alright if you at some point were deceived.William, I don't know what you're talking about but I suspect it's a jab at bobaugust. This thread is about the children. Would you like to contribute?

[William Anthony]

William, I don't know what you're talking about but I suspect it's a jab at bobaugust. This thread is about the children. Would you like to contribute?

I have contributed to those comments that I feel are worthy of my response. I know you read more than just this thread and I was replying to your word here. Perhaps, you only buy into the false information posted on this thread is what you meant and I apologize for not understanding you ambiguous use of the word here. :)

[tv]

I have contributed to those comments that I feel are worthy of my response. I know you read more than just this thread and I was replying to your word here. Perhaps, you only buy into the false information posted on this thread is what you meant and I apologize for not understanding you ambiguous use of the word here. :)William, I'm not going to get involved with your circular posting today. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

William, I'm not going to get involved with your circular posting today. :seeya:

Just trying to understand and it's alright if you don't feel like clarifying. :)

[martin II]

Saying someone else put it there is not enough. Where is the proof?

Well if oj did not put it there then someone did OR the glove walked there on its own.Hows that.

[martin II]

did the kids make the decision where they would live?

In the custody hearing both kids told the "social worker" and the judge they wanted to live with their father not the Browns.The judge made the decision.

[weezer]

In the custody hearing both kids told the "social worker" and the judge they wanted to live with their father not the Browns.The judge made the decision.

hmmm -- I don't believe I've ever read/seen/heard that. Do you have a link?

[tv]

In the custody hearing both kids told the "social worker" and the judge they wanted to live with their father not the Browns.The judge made the decision.

martin, just to be clear where I stand on this, there's no legal reason I can see that the children shouldn't have gone back to live with their father. They wanted to live with him, he had the income to give them a good life and as far as I know he never abused them.

[martin II]

martin, just to be clear where I stand on this, there's no legal reason I can see that the children shouldn't have gone back to live with their father. They wanted to live with him, he had the income to give them a good life and as far as I know he never abused them.

I agree

[martin II]

hmmm -- I don't believe I've ever read/seen/heard that. Do you have a link?

Weezer
I was sure that would be your next question based on how you have posted previously.

Yes i have a link but i am not looking for it now as i am watching the trial and it has been discussed before when the custody trial was taking place.
But you can look for it your self if you are in a hurry.

[weezer]

Weezer
I was sure that would be your next question based on how you have posted previously.

Yes i have a link but i am not looking for it now as i am watching the trial and it has been discussed before when the custody trial was taking place.
But you can look for it your self if you are in a hurry.

why do you have to be so 'hating' about everything? I said I hadn't read/seen/heard that about the children making that statement and asked for a link.

[Kate Sachel]

why do you have to be so 'hating' about everything? I said I hadn't read/seen/heard that about the children making that statement and asked for a link.

I think that they did make that statement, but here is an interesting thing to consider;

In an article in Time magazine dated January 24, 2001 Natasha Roit, who was the Brown's attorney, stated that the children made statements to the court appointed psychiatrist that showed that they had witnessed domestic violence against Nicole Brown Simpson in the Simpson home and that those statements are on record with the court.

Kate

[martin II]

I will look for a link when i have time but i believe the court appointed person
recomended that the children not live with the Browns because of the many negative comments against the childrens father spoken by the browns in their home.imo

[weezer]

I think that they did make that statement, but here is an interesting thing to consider;

In an article in Time magazine dated January 24, 2001 Natasha Roit, who was the Brown's attorney, stated that the children made statements to the court appointed psychiatrist that showed that they had witnessed domestic violence against Nicole Brown Simpson in the Simpson home and that those statements are on record with the court.

Kate

I'm not doubting they said it, I thought from his post that he had a link to the court transcript.

I've always had the feeling that orenthal didn't necessarily 'want' the children fulltime but he couldn't let someone else 'win.' I don't have anything to base that on -- just a feeling.

I can't imagine that the kids hadn't/didn't see the abuse. In fact, that's why I think it's so very telling that both girls called 911 during confrontations with orenthal.

[tv]

I think that they did make that statement, but here is an interesting thing to consider;

In an article in Time magazine dated January 24, 2001 Natasha Roit, who was the Brown's attorney, stated that the children made statements to the court appointed psychiatrist that showed that they had witnessed domestic violence against Nicole Brown Simpson in the Simpson home and that those statements are on record with the court.

Kate

I feel that the violence against Nicole in front of the children was an indirect form of abuse of them as well.

[martin II]

The judge gave oj custody of his children at the end of the court ordered investigation.

[limakey]

It's only natural the children would want to live with their father. What's your point?

TV,

Normally, I would agree with your statement. However, there have been cases when children have made it quite clear they did not want to live their reamaining parent because they knew that one parent killed the other or tried to kill them. Remember Diane Downs? There have been other cases where children, the same age, perhaps even younger that have testified against their parent in a murder case.

In fact, I think it was one of these cases where the law did change that a parent could lose parental rights if they get convicted of killing their spouse.

In this case, it is obvious that Sydney Simpson did hear things and see things that last few weeks of her mother's life, not to mention the last night of her life that leads her to firmly believe that her father did not kill her mother.

While I understand that a very upset teenager can really think that calling 911 is the right thing to do at the time, doesn't mean that they feel the same way after they calm down. If I remember correctly, Sydney never mentioned or has ever even hinted that she believes her father killed her mother. I would think if she was that upset and she felt that way, that she would have relayed that to the police.

You do make a valid point about the publicity that Sydney's 911 phone call would generate. However, I don't really think that was a major concern of her's at the time.

I would never make light of a child or teenager calling 911 for help. However, I would consider what type of help or response the child or the teenager was hoping to get.

I remember one time, my son told that I couldn't do something and if I did, he was going to call the police---I told him to please call, I got three hots and a cot and I don't have to drive him to hockey practice. That going to jail was going to be the first vacation I got in years and it is free. Now, was my response very mature? No, did my response further upset my child, yes. But darn it, there comes a time when a parent has to throw a better temper tantrum then the child to send the message, that I was once a kid too and I can hold my breath longer then you! Again, not very mature, however, it does bring the arguement back under control, IMO.

Another story, that perhaps you can relate to. One time I was going out and my son became very uspet and I just lost it. I told him that I was over 40 years old and that I had a right to a private life, that I had a right to enjoy an evening out with people that were over the age of 9. Again, not very mature but it is the truth. Well, a couple of weeks later he said that he was going out and I asked him where he was going. He then launched into his having rights and that he was entitled to a private life.

At that point I informed that that I was entitled to a private life but he was not and he would never have a private life until I said it was okay for him to have a private life. He then asked me when would he be old enough to have a private life, I said the age 30 was looking good. That was when he was 9. He turns 16 next month and the age is up to 60!!!!!!

[limakey]

Saying someone else put it there is not enough. Where is the proof?

TV,

In all fairness, isn't that what the DA's are saying--they are saying that Simpson dropped the glove--yet they have no physical proof. Kato saying that that he thought someone could have been back there isn't enough to say that it was Simpson who dropped the glove. There is no evidence to support that Simpson dropped the glove back there.

Now back to the children----I would have loved to know if Sydney and or Justin would have testified about the hat. Would they have said it was father's?

[martin II]

TV,

Normally, I would agree with your statement. However, there have been cases when children have made it quite clear they did not want to live their reamaining parent because they knew that one parent killed the other or tried to kill them. Remember Diane Downs? There have been other cases where children, the same age, perhaps even younger that have testified against their parent in a murder case.

In fact, I think it was one of these cases where the law did change that a parent could lose parental rights if they get convicted of killing their spouse.

In this case, it is obvious that Sydney Simpson did hear things and see things that last few weeks of her mother's life, not to mention the last night of her life that leads her to firmly believe that her father did not kill her mother.

While I understand that a very upset teenager can really think that calling 911 is the right thing to do at the time, doesn't mean that they feel the same way after they calm down. If I remember correctly, Sydney never mentioned or has ever even hinted that she believes her father killed her mother. I would think if she was that upset and she felt that way, that she would have relayed that to the police.

You do make a valid point about the publicity that Sydney's 911 phone call would generate. However, I don't really think that was a major concern of her's at the time.

I would never make light of a child or teenager calling 911 for help. However, I would consider what type of help or response the child or the teenager was hoping to get.

I remember one time, my son told that I couldn't do something and if I did, he was going to call the police---I told him to please call, I got three hots and a cot and I don't have to drive him to hockey practice. That going to jail was going to be the first vacation I got in years and it is free. Now, was my response very mature? No, did my response further upset my child, yes. But darn it, there comes a time when a parent has to throw a better temper tantrum then the child to send the message, that I was once a kid too and I can hold my breath longer then you! Again, not very mature, however, it does bring the arguement back under control, IMO.

Another story, that perhaps you can relate to. One time I was going out and my son became very uspet and I just lost it. I told him that I was over 40 years old and that I had a right to a private life, that I had a right to enjoy an evening out with people that were over the age of 9. Again, not very mature but it is the truth. Well, a couple of weeks later he said that he was going out and I asked him where he was going. He then launched into his having rights and that he was entitled to a private life.

At that point I informed that that I was entitled to a private life but he was not and he would never have a private life until I said it was okay for him to have a private life. He then asked me when would he be old enough to have a private life, I said the age 30 was looking good. That was when he was 9. He turns 16 next month and the age is up to 60!!!!!!



Limakey'

You sound like a smart mother and you have a smart thinking child.

[William Anthony]

TV,

Normally, I would agree with your statement. However, there have been cases when children have made it quite clear they did not want to live their reamaining parent because they knew that one parent killed the other or tried to kill them. Remember Diane Downs? There have been other cases where children, the same age, perhaps even younger that have testified against their parent in a murder case.

In fact, I think it was one of these cases where the law did change that a parent could lose parental rights if they get convicted of killing their spouse.

In this case, it is obvious that Sydney Simpson did hear things and see things that last few weeks of her mother's life, not to mention the last night of her life that leads her to firmly believe that her father did not kill her mother.

While I understand that a very upset teenager can really think that calling 911 is the right thing to do at the time, doesn't mean that they feel the same way after they calm down. If I remember correctly, Sydney never mentioned or has ever even hinted that she believes her father killed her mother. I would think if she was that upset and she felt that way, that she would have relayed that to the police.

You do make a valid point about the publicity that Sydney's 911 phone call would generate. However, I don't really think that was a major concern of her's at the time.

I would never make light of a child or teenager calling 911 for help. However, I would consider what type of help or response the child or the teenager was hoping to get.

I remember one time, my son told that I couldn't do something and if I did, he was going to call the police---I told him to please call, I got three hots and a cot and I don't have to drive him to hockey practice. That going to jail was going to be the first vacation I got in years and it is free. Now, was my response very mature? No, did my response further upset my child, yes. But darn it, there comes a time when a parent has to throw a better temper tantrum then the child to send the message, that I was once a kid too and I can hold my breath longer then you! Again, not very mature, however, it does bring the arguement back under control, IMO.

Another story, that perhaps you can relate to. One time I was going out and my son became very uspet and I just lost it. I told him that I was over 40 years old and that I had a right to a private life, that I had a right to enjoy an evening out with people that were over the age of 9. Again, not very mature but it is the truth. Well, a couple of weeks later he said that he was going out and I asked him where he was going. He then launched into his having rights and that he was entitled to a private life.

At that point I informed that that I was entitled to a private life but he was not and he would never have a private life until I said it was okay for him to have a private life. He then asked me when would he be old enough to have a private life, I said the age 30 was looking good. That was when he was 9. He turns 16 next month and the age is up to 60!!!!!!

If children had an equal voice, there would be no need for the labels parent and child and parents would not be charged with the responsibility of raising a child. I feel that this is one of the necessary class distinctions in America. I would not care how upset my child was with me as long as they respected me and followed my rules. I think that a child will develop a mature understanding in order to realize the parents were acting in their best interest and that will transform from respect into love and respect. If children are given an equal voice, there is no need to develop respect for authority and, consequently, no basis for the transformation of respect for a parent into love of that parent. In fact, the child is left to its own tutelage and may resent the parent for not providing proper rearing.

I think a child is entitled to a private life, when they move into their own home, do not ask me for financial assistance and are able to shield from me anything that I may not approve of.:)

[Kayleighjo]

If children had an equal voice, there would be no need for the labels parent and child and parents would not be charged with the responsibility of raising a child. I feel that this is one of the necessary class distinctions in America. I would not care how upset my child was with me as long as they respected me and followed my rules. I think that a child will develop a mature understanding in order to realize the parents were acting in their best interest and that will transform from respect into love and respect. If children are given an equal voice, there is no need to develop respect for authority and, consequently, no basis for the transformation of respect for a parent into love of that parent. In fact, the child is left to its own tutelage and may resent the parent for not providing proper rearing.

I think a child is entitled to a private life, when they move into their own home, do not ask me for financial assistance and are able to shield from me anything that I may not approve of.:)

As a mom of several I'll say this ... kids do have rights and upon a certain age they are definitely entitled to a form of a private life. It's just there's got to be limits. My teenage daughter definitely has a right to private conversations with girlfriends and boyfriends, she's got a right to a room of her own with a door she can close and a journal she can keep in her desk without worrying that I'm going to snoop and read her most private thoughts. She's got a right to her own thoughts and opinions and the right not to tell me what those are.

What she doesn't have a right to do is run my home, tell me what to do, engage in illegal activity, and things along those lines.

But where some parents get the idea that their kids have no rights is beyond me, which is what I'm getting from both things on here and on the other thread about spanking which I need to address in a few minutes.

[Kayleighjo]

I feel that the violence against Nicole in front of the children was an indirect form of abuse of them as well.

I agree!

[martin II]

Children need and ask for direction regardless of what may come out of their mouths from time to time.Raising a child is not a democratric operation.
It is more like a dictatorship until the child is of age or shows a ability to make
safe and smart decisions.

I remember the family of the boy (colonbine) sp that was in his room on the net and playing with guns in his private room with the door shut that planned and went to school and killed all of those students. His parents said they had no idea he was doing this stuff in his private room.
Parents need to know who their children talk on the phone with surf the net with and what they do in the room provided to them by their parents.A good was to keep track is the bring your childs friends into your home for activities.

[William Anthony]

As a mom of several I'll say this ... kids do have rights and upon a certain age they are definitely entitled to a form of a private life. It's just there's got to be limits. My teenage daughter definitely has a right to private conversations with girlfriends and boyfriends, she's got a right to a room of her own with a door she can close and a journal she can keep in her desk without worrying that I'm going to snoop and read her most private thoughts. She's got a right to her own thoughts and opinions and the right not to tell me what those are.

What she doesn't have a right to do is run my home, tell me what to do, engage in illegal activity, and things along those lines.

But where some parents get the idea that their kids have no rights is beyond me, which is what I'm getting from both things on here and on the other thread about spanking which I need to address in a few minutes.

I was speaking as to how I view the rights of children in my home. Anything that I should choose to allow them to do is a privilege. When they demonstrate the level of maturity that I feel is necessary, then I will allow them certain privileges. Those privileges do not automatically accrue with age. A child may express their feelings on paper but, if they leave that paper in my home, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked, since I have the right to damage my own property, the paper is fair game, unless I have decided that the child has demonstrated enough maturity to entitle them to the privilege of privacy.

[martin II]

If children had an equal voice, there would be no need for the labels parent and child and parents would not be charged with the responsibility of raising a child. I feel that this is one of the necessary class distinctions in America. I would not care how upset my child was with me as long as they respected me and followed my rules. I think that a child will develop a mature understanding in order to realize the parents were acting in their best interest and that will transform from respect into love and respect. If children are given an equal voice, there is no need to develop respect for authority and, consequently, no basis for the transformation of respect for a parent into love of that parent. In fact, the child is left to its own tutelage and may resent the parent for not providing proper rearing.

I think a child is entitled to a private life, when they move into their own home, do not ask me for financial assistance and are able to shield from me anything that I may not approve of.:)

Children seeking a identity often times get up set as they search for a identity they feel good about. like hit and miss until they get it right.The parent is present to set and stear them towards their goal.

[William Anthony]

Children seeking a identity often times get up set as they search for a identity they feel good about. like hit and miss until they get it right.The parent is present to set and stear them towards their goal.

All too often parents try to be friends, instead of parents first, imho.

[William Anthony]

I think that the discussion may have veered slightly off topic but that it is an interesting one.

[tv]

TV,

In all fairness, isn't that what the DA's are saying--they are saying that Simpson dropped the glove--yet they have no physical proof. Kato saying that that he thought someone could have been back there isn't enough to say that it was Simpson who dropped the glove. There is no evidence to support that Simpson dropped the glove back there.

Now back to the children----I would have loved to know if Sydney and or Justin would have testified about the hat. Would they have said it was father's?

Of course there is physical proof. His DNA and the DNA of both victims is on the glove. Since Ron and Nicole are dead and Simpson is alive it's safe to say that he dropped the glove behind Kato's room. I'd be curious to know, besides an eye witness, what you consider convincing proof that the glove was dropped by Simpson.

I don't know what the children would have said about the knit cap. For what it's worth an identical knit cap was found in Simpson's home.

[tv]

I was speaking as to how I view the rights of children in my home. Anything that I should choose to allow them to do is a privilege. When they demonstrate the level of maturity that I feel is necessary, then I will allow them certain privileges. Those privileges do not automatically accrue with age. A child may express their feelings on paper but, if they leave that paper in my home, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked, since I have the right to damage my own property, the paper is fair game, unless I have decided that the child has demonstrated enough maturity to entitle them to the privilege of privacy.

Your attitude toward trusting a child is completely different than mine. I always trusted my children and respected their privacy until they gave me a reason not to. I explained this to them when they were old enough to start using their own judgment in different situations and my children gave me very little trouble.

[William Anthony]

Your attitude toward trusting a child is completely different than mine. I always trusted my children and respected their privacy until they gave me a reason not to. I explained this to them when they were old enough to start using their own judgment in different situations and my children gave me very little trouble.

I do not see this as any different. When they have demonstrated a level of maturity to understand what I am saying and conform to my directions, as you say you told them when they were old enough to use their own judgment. You obviously made a value judgment that I do not think was entirely on age. I think you imply a age that corresponds to a level of maturity, i.e. you would give a 13 year old more privileges if they showed they were worthy than you would an unworthy 15 year old. I do not think you told your children, you are old enough to have sex and you make your own decisions, without explaining all that pertains to that decision and judging whether or not they understood the seriousness of the decision.

[martin II]

Of course there is physical proof. His DNA and the DNA of both victims is on the glove. Since Ron and Nicole are dead and Simpson is alive it's safe to say that he dropped the glove behind Kato's room. I'd be curious to know, besides an eye witness, what you consider convincing proof that the glove was dropped by Simpson.

I don't know what the children would have said about the knit cap. For what it's worth an identical knit cap was found in Simpson's home.

Physical proof is required becuase a physical item was found. Proof that someone was actually IN the walkway before furhman FOUND the glove.

The fact that three lapd detectives examined examined the area of the fence and found no evidence that ANYONE did jump that fence including oj and because there was not other evidence found. There is no reason to accept the prosecutions claime that oj did jump the fence.

Some have claimed that Kato put the glove there but with no proof so would you believe that.

[Kayleighjo]

I was speaking as to how I view the rights of children in my home. Anything that I should choose to allow them to do is a privilege. When they demonstrate the level of maturity that I feel is necessary, then I will allow them certain privileges. Those privileges do not automatically accrue with age. A child may express their feelings on paper but, if they leave that paper in my home, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked, since I have the right to damage my own property, the paper is fair game, unless I have decided that the child has demonstrated enough maturity to entitle them to the privilege of privacy.

Oh that's so sad.

[Kayleighjo]

Children need and ask for direction regardless of what may come out of their mouths from time to time.Raising a child is not a democratric operation.
It is more like a dictatorship until the child is of age or shows a ability to make
safe and smart decisions.

I remember the family of the boy (colonbine) sp that was in his room on the net and playing with guns in his private room with the door shut that planned and went to school and killed all of those students. His parents said they had no idea he was doing this stuff in his private room.
Parents need to know who their children talk on the phone with surf the net with and what they do in the room provided to them by their parents.A good was to keep track is the bring your childs friends into your home for activities.

I think you mean Columbine, but take a look at those parents. There's a difference between having an interest in your kids lives and allowing them privacy and not caring whatsoever or paying attnetion towhat it is that they are doing - as was the case with these folks as you can by listening to them talk about it.

[William Anthony]

Oh that's so sad.

It may be sad but is my responsibility as an adult and a parent to make sure that my child is not injured by their conduct or by others who may properly influence them. To be forearmed is to be forewarned. We only need to look at society as a whole to see what is happening to children that are raising children, which I believe is a result of parents thinking they are too civilized and not recognizing their responsibility to civilize their children.

[Redmama]

Maby i did not make myself clear for you.

I don't think i said children calling 911 on their parents was a everday occurance.

I said that i don't think it strange that sydney a teenager ,wanting to have her way about going to a party would be come angry and call 911 and claim some wrongdoing by her father. That i knew of another instance where a teenager had threatened to call a 800 number to report a parent not allowing him to go out late at night.I hope this is clear on what my position is.

Obviously my experneice or opinion on this issue is different then yours.If you are going to state my positions it may be more accurate if you just cut & paste my comments rather giving a opinion of what i have stated.
If any coments i have made needs clearing up i can do that.
Thanks.

PS
I think that children that may have access to the 800 abuse number would use it. Those that don't would use the more common number for help 911.
That is my opinion.


I would be glad to post in the way you would prefer - actually tried to - but your story about what was normal (911) evolved to what was daily (800) and evolved from there...by the end, I truly wasn't sure what your position was. I think my accuracy is just fine.

[martin II]

I would be glad to post in the way you would prefer - actually tried to - but your story about what was normal (911) evolved to what was daily (800) and evolved from there...by the end, I truly wasn't sure what your position was. I think my accuracy is just fine.

If you snip my comments then you would be sure.

[Redmama]

If you snip my comments then you would be sure.

That was my exact point - there were so many comments from you on the same subject even if I snipped them , I couldn't be sure of anything.

[Redmama]

I was speaking as to how I view the rights of children in my home. Anything that I should choose to allow them to do is a privilege. When they demonstrate the level of maturity that I feel is necessary, then I will allow them certain privileges. Those privileges do not automatically accrue with age. A child may express their feelings on paper but, if they leave that paper in my home, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked, since I have the right to damage my own property, the paper is fair game, unless I have decided that the child has demonstrated enough maturity to entitle them to the privilege of privacy.

If I'm understanding you correctly...that the paper may be a diary, a thought, or whatever, I agree. I'm the nosiest Mom you could ever meet. I've always been pretty upfront about that and my daughter isn't exactly the neatest person on earth, so when I find something, I read it. There have been a few moments in life that I have gone digging further when the mother's instinct gave me the notion to do so. So far, I have found nothing that put her in danger, or even got her grounded. On the other hand, I have found a couple of things that opened up some healthy conversations. If she wasn't 21 and off to college I'd still be doing it!!!!

[martin II]

That was my exact point - there were so many comments from you on the same subject even if I snipped them , I couldn't be sure of anything.


What i am suggesting is that if you are not sure of my post then it would be better if you not make a post attributing comments to me that i did not make.
cool:

[Redmama]

What i am suggesting is that if you are not sure of my post then it would be better if you not make a post attributing comments to me that i did not make.
cool:

sure - clear as mud - gotcha - don't worry this terrible mistake won't happen again.

[tv]

Physical proof is required becuase a physical item was found. Proof that someone was actually IN the walkway before furhman FOUND the glove.

The fact that three lapd detectives examined examined the area of the fence and found no evidence that ANYONE did jump that fence including oj and because there was not other evidence found. There is no reason to accept the prosecutions claime that oj did jump the fence.

Some have claimed that Kato put the glove there but with no proof so would you believe that.
Blood on the glove is physical proof. Kato's DNA wasn't on the glove but OJ Simpson's was.

[tv]

TV,

Normally, I would agree with your statement. However, there have been cases when children have made it quite clear they did not want to live their reamaining parent because they knew that one parent killed the other or tried to kill them. Remember Diane Downs? There have been other cases where children, the same age, perhaps even younger that have testified against their parent in a murder case.

The Diane Downs case bears very resemblance to this case. In the Downs case the children were shot by their mother and she was found guilty. She wouldn't have been able to get the children back even if they wanted to live with her. Mary Winkler has her children back now even though she killed their father.

[tv]

sure - clear as mud - gotcha - don't worry this terrible mistake won't happen again.Remama, if it makes any difference, I thought martin was saying the same thing.

[martin II]

Blood on the glove is physical proof. Kato's DNA wasn't on the glove but OJ Simpson's was.

Ok but this stills leaves the prosecution with no proof that someone jumped the fence or that was this someone was oj as M Clarke claimed.

[limakey]

Of course there is physical proof. His DNA and the DNA of both victims is on the glove. Since Ron and Nicole are dead and Simpson is alive it's safe to say that he dropped the glove behind Kato's room. I'd be curious to know, besides an eye witness, what you consider convincing proof that the glove was dropped by Simpson.

I don't know what the children would have said about the knit cap. For what it's worth an identical knit cap was found in Simpson's home.

TV,

I do believe the glove was planted because there is no other trace evidence to suggest that any human being was behind the wall. However, does the planted glove mean Simpson is innocent---no---but it does mean that someone was trying to point the finger at him. I do not think it is phyically possible for a man over 6' tall, weighing over 200 pounds, crashing into a wall and then running so fast he did not distrub a single leaf or leave footprints is just beyond my comprehension. It also makes no sense to me that Simpson would jump this fence risking being seen by the only other person he knew he was on the estate. Had the glove not been found there, then I think a reasonable arguement could have been made by the DA's that it was Simpson, creating a diversion trying to get Kato into a distracted state where he would be able to enter his home without having to use the front door.

Kato's description of the thumps are very confusing at times. He said the noise caused the vibrations--the 3 thumps. Well how many noises could cause this reaction? The fact that neither side could recreate this noise is perhaps the most baffling aspect of the thumps. IMO.

The first tests conducted on the glove found at Rockingham were inconclusive. Then the tech remembered that he had spilled blood and he had the glove out, I can't remember the exact details other then he first said he did not spill any and then he remembered some spillage (sp?).

Now, just for the sake of arguement, if you knew for a fact that the glove was planted and the blood on the glove was in fact an accident, would you change your mind about his guilt? I don't think you would. Believe it or not, I have posted this many times, even if every single piece of evidence was planted, it does not prove Simpson's innocence, however, it does open at least 4 billion doors of reasonable doubt, IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

I agree with your statement about your children. My son has yet to give me a reason not to trust him. However, I have made it clear that if he is on the computer and if I come up behind him and I start reading it, if he minimizes the screen, he will pull it back up so I can read it. I am sure that many parents are cringing as they read this but my point to my son is that communication on the computer is not private communication and he better not be typing anything to anyone that he would not have the courage to say to their face and he is to remember that many people "troll" communications. It can be a sicko or it can be law enforcement. I better not get a call from the police or another parent where my boy was abusive to their child. A bully is a bully, doesn't matter if it is "just on a computer". Again, just my theory.

I am very lucky with my son but I am also very straight up with him. For example, I told him that if he is ever at a party he gets drunk or his friend gets drunk, he better call me but make no mistake about it, I will be angry. I will not punish him when we get home, however, if I have to drive 500 miles until he sobers up enough to listen to my lecture--then so be it. He woke me up and it is only fair he is alert enough to listen to me!

[limakey]

William,

I do agree, too many parents want to be friends first. I have always maintained the "I'm not your buddy, I am not your pal" type of relationship with my son. I have taught my son that their are certain lines that should never be crossed in all of his relationships and I have clearly defined the lines of our relationship.

[martin II]

here is something for everyone

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/09/17/helicopter.parents/index.html

[Redmama]

Remama, if it makes any difference, I thought martin was saying the same thing.

It does and I thank you!

[William Anthony]

William,

I do agree, too many parents want to be friends first. I have always maintained the "I'm not your buddy, I am not your pal" type of relationship with my son. I have taught my son that their are certain lines that should never be crossed in all of his relationships and I have clearly defined the lines of our relationship.

Spoken as an intelligent person, who recognizes her foremost responsibilities, as a parent, imho.

[limakey]

I was speaking as to how I view the rights of children in my home. Anything that I should choose to allow them to do is a privilege. When they demonstrate the level of maturity that I feel is necessary, then I will allow them certain privileges. Those privileges do not automatically accrue with age. A child may express their feelings on paper but, if they leave that paper in my home, regardless of whether the door is locked or unlocked, since I have the right to damage my own property, the paper is fair game, unless I have decided that the child has demonstrated enough maturity to entitle them to the privilege of privacy.

William,

I think you have taught your children a very important lesson. There is a difference between "rights" and privileges. IMO, there are many children and perhaps even some adults who do not know the difference.

I also think you have taught them another thing, perhaps not even realizing the lesson--with privileges, comes responsibility. And if you can't handle the responsibility, then you can't handle the privileges.

I agree with your comments about age. It seems to me that age does not automatically mean that common sense come with it.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

Here is an interesting twist on the custody battle. If I remember correctly, the Browns' wanted to use the evidence in the murder trial as a part of their case. However, if they did that, then it would leave the door open for the defense to counter that evidencen not with the trial evidence but they could introduce any new evidence. The Browns and their lawyers did not want this to happen. I know the reason they gave is that they did not want to go through that again.

Yet, IMO, that makes no sense, just like it made no sense to me that Judy Brown never took the stand in the criminal trial. IMO, I think the only reason why Judy never took the stand in the criminal trial was because of her comments to the ME office as well as her comments to Shapiro about the phone calls---the time and how she knew what time it was.

[Kayleighjo]

Spoken as an intelligent person, who recognizes her foremost responsibilities, as a parent, imho.

Here's the bottom line, just because you treat your kids as actual people who have a right to privacy doesn't mean you shirk your responsibilities as a parent.

All of my kids know not to cross a line with me, and they learned that by strict discipline though that discipline was definitely not by spanking as my kids already lived in a home where their dad used his hands on their mom and I wasn't going to use my hands on my kids - I didn't have to because I wasn't lazy in my discipline.

My kids know that I'm mom first, with friend coming in a very distant second. But! ... I still I respect their right to privacy and all that goes with that. In turn, my kids come to me with issues and allow me to help them before those issues get out of control. More than anything, that makes me proud. I don't have to be informed of any issues my kids have from anyone else - a principal, a counseler, ect - because they tell me on their own.

I can rest assured I'm doing something right.

[WarmNCozy]

nope -- I'm not having problems with the facts -- you're having problems with reality. did orenthal write a book describing how he would have murdered Ron and Nicole? yes, he did. I did not say the title of the book was 'how' -- I said he wrote a book describing 'how' --

my sadness comes from Nicole's children willing to accept money for the description of her brutal death by their father. It just seems wrong to me.

Maybe the children don't believe their father guilty. JMO

[Kayleighjo]

Maybe the children don't believe their father guilty. JMO

I don't think that's where the concern comes in. Even if they think he's innocent, it's still gross to take money from a book where their "innocent" father describes stabbing their mother "if" he did it.

[William Anthony]

Here's the bottom line, just because you treat your kids as actual people who have a right to privacy doesn't mean you shirk your responsibilities as a parent.

All of my kids know not to cross a line with me, and they learned that by strict discipline though that discipline was definitely not by spanking as my kids already lived in a home where their dad used his hands on their mom and I wasn't going to use my hands on my kids - I didn't have to because I wasn't lazy in my discipline.

My kids know that I'm mom first, with friend coming in a very distant second. But! ... I still I respect their right to privacy and all that goes with that. In turn, my kids come to me with issues and allow me to help them before those issues get out of control. More than anything, that makes me proud. I don't have to be informed of any issues my kids have from anyone else - a principal, a counseler, ect - because they tell me on their own.

I can rest assured I'm doing something right.

I appreciate your sentiments but I feel as a parent that my job is not to rest but to maintain a constant vigil.

[weezer]

Maybe the children don't believe their father guilty. JMO

I imagine any child/sibling/spouse/parent's inclination is to believe their loved one innocent -- I'm okay with that.

I still came to a 'stop' when the 'children' agreed to and were willing to accept money for a book about their mother's brutal death written by their father.

[WarmNCozy]

I imagine any child/sibling/spouse/parent's inclination is to believe their loved one innocent -- I'm okay with that.

I still came to a 'stop' when the 'children' agreed to and were willing to accept money for a book about their mother's brutal death written by their father.

Did you read the book? It was a love story with one chapter a "what if".

[weezer]

Did you read the book? It was a love story with one chapter a "what if".

you have got to be kidding me! it was a 'love story'? Good God Almighty. :eek:

[Kayleighjo]

Did you read the book? It was a love story with one chapter a "what if".

OMFG!!! A LOVE story? I've heard everything now.

[Kayleighjo]

I appreciate your sentiments but I feel as a parent that my job is not to rest but to maintain a constant vigil.

Then I think you must be doing something wrong. You apparently have little to no faith in your kids. That's sad.

[martin II]

I imagine any child/sibling/spouse/parent's inclination is to believe their loved one innocent -- I'm okay with that.

I still came to a 'stop' when the 'children' agreed to and were willing to accept money for a book about their mother's brutal death written by their father.

As far as i know you were not involved in any decisions of ojs children and therefore what makes you come to a 'stop' has nothing to do with any decision they take.Unless you believe they asked your approval.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Then I think you must be doing something wrong. You apparently have little to know faith in your kids. That's sad.

My faith is foremost in God and his word, which tells us to watch as well as pray. By the definition, they are children, whose judgment is not always the best. Enter the law and the concept of what is in the child's best interest, because the child does not always know what their best interest is. I realize my responsibility is to decide for them and not for them to decide for me.

[William Anthony]

OMFG!!! A LOVE story? I've heard everything now.

Love is both confused and confusing, imho.

[tv]

Did you read the book? It was a love story with one chapter a "what if".

Unbelievable. He put Nicole in the worst possible light. If this is love...:eek:

[martin II]

I think that parents use different methods to raise their children based their evaluation of their childs abilities to deal with daily experiences.I am of the opinion that no method is WRONG OR SAD as long as the child is growing ,healthy , having fun and is free of danger.

[weezer]

As far as i know you were not involved in any decisions of ojs children and therefore what makes you come to a 'stop' has nothing to do with any decision they take.Unless you believe they asked your approval.:cool:

you are too funny! I do not believe that you don't find it more than a little weird that the 'children' would be willing to participate.

[martin II]

Unbelievable. He put Nicole in the worst possible light. If this is love...:eek:

It would not be fair if oj had not discussed Nicoles warts since his has been discussed to no end.

[martin II]

you are too funny! I do not believe that you don't find it more than a little weird that the 'children' would be willing to participate.


It seems that all opinions that are not in lock step with yours, are somehow a weird or wrong. SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT.

[weezer]

It would not be fair if oj had not discussed Nicoles warts since his has been discussed to no end.

that would be a fair statement EXCEPT for the fact that he didn't want to discuss his own. :flamemad:

[tv]

It would not be fair if oj had not discussed Nicoles warts since his has been discussed to no end.

By what stretch of the imagination do you think it's "fair" that OJ Simpson trash his ex-wife and the mother of his children to the whole world? The woman is dead and unable to defend herself against anything said about her. He is still breathing and walking around...that's real fair.

[weezer]

It seems that all opinions that are not in lock step with yours, are somehow a weird or wrong. SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT.

there's nothing wrong with that -- :D

[William Anthony]

Somehow the children are no longer being mentioned and the focus seems to be on something other than the children.

[weezer]

By what stretch of the imagination do you think it's "fair" that OJ Simpson trash his ex-wife and the mother of his children to the whole world? The woman is dead and unable to defend herself against anything said about her. He is still breathing and walking around...that's real fair.

I think what became known about his before the murders and how he's lived his life since the murders says all that needs to be said about orenthal james simpson -- the Butcher of Brentwood.

[martin II]

By what stretch of the imagination do you think it's "fair" that OJ Simpson trash his ex-wife and the mother of his children to the whole world? The woman is dead and unable to defend herself against anything said about her. He is still breathing and walking around...that's real fair.

Nicole being dead has nothing to do with ojs right to write a book about his life with her.It was his life as well as hers.imo

[Redmama]

I think there are some good things about just about everyone's ideals that have been stated on raising children. Every parent is different - every child is different - and different parenting skills work for everyone.

When I was raising my daughter, I thought I did it all right. She was a great kid - I got more grief from my friends about having the "perfect" daughter. She never got in trouble; always did homework and things like that without being asked. She is now in college earning her CPA and Masters...and I have trouble adding two and two.

Now that she is over 21, we have been having those conversations that parents and children finally can have after the "grounding period" has passed. She did a lot of things I didn't know about, and she wasn't perfect, but she tells me that the fact that I was always there, being in her business made her stop many times in her tracks. I'm sure some of the things she has told me now would have caused her to be in a lot of trouble if I would have found out about them. And probably caused me a heart attack. Now, they are just funny - some totally hilarious...and they are funny and we can laugh only because she made it out safe.

What I'm trying to say here is until our children come out the other end safely, who knows what the right thing to do is. We all have to use our best judgment. Instead of judging others parenting skills it is much more interesting to find out what has or has not worked for others...and then always decide for ourselves. Unfortunately, they don't come with a manual...at least mine didn't - believe me I looked!

[Redmama]

Nicole being dead has nothing to do with ojs right to write a book about his life with her.It was his life as well as hers.imo

Nicole maybe didn't, but his kids sure did.

[martin II]

Wezer
How about we get back on track and talk about the children.Or any children.

[William Anthony]

I think there are some good things about just about everyone's ideals that have been stated on raising children. Every parent is different - every child is different - and different parenting skills work for everyone.

When I was raising my daughter, I thought I did it all right. She was a great kid - I got more grief from my friends about having the "perfect" daughter. She never got in trouble; always did homework and things like that without being asked. She is now in college earning her CPA and Masters...and I have trouble adding two and two.

Now that she is over 21, we have been having those conversations that parents and children finally can have after the "grounding period" has passed. She did a lot of things I didn't know about, and she wasn't perfect, but she tells me that the fact that I was always there, being in her business made her stop many times in her tracks. I'm sure some of the things she has told me now would have caused her to be in a lot of trouble if I would have found out about them. And probably caused me a heart attack. Now, they are just funny - some totally hilarious...and they are funny and we can laugh only because she made it out safe.

What I'm trying to say here is until our children come out the other end safely, who knows what the right thing to do is. We all have to use our best judgment. Instead of judging others parenting skills it is much more interesting to find out what has or has not worked for others...and then always decide for ourselves. Unfortunately, they don't come with a manual...at least mine didn't - believe me I looked!

A well thought out and well articulated post. Thanks for the post.

[William Anthony]

Nicole maybe didn't, but his kids sure did.

For whatever reasons, whether they thought it was distasteful and wanted to diminish the profits he was to receive or whether they needed the money for financial reasons, they accepted it. I do not want to get into a discussion of First Amendment rights, as I think the proper focus should be on the children.

[weezer]

Wezer
How about we get back on track and talk about the children.Or any children.

bump your head? we've been talking about the children!

[weezer]

I think there are some good things about just about everyone's ideals that have been stated on raising children. Every parent is different - every child is different - and different parenting skills work for everyone.

When I was raising my daughter, I thought I did it all right. She was a great kid - I got more grief from my friends about having the "perfect" daughter. She never got in trouble; always did homework and things like that without being asked. She is now in college earning her CPA and Masters...and I have trouble adding two and two.

Now that she is over 21, we have been having those conversations that parents and children finally can have after the "grounding period" has passed. She did a lot of things I didn't know about, and she wasn't perfect, but she tells me that the fact that I was always there, being in her business made her stop many times in her tracks. I'm sure some of the things she has told me now would have caused her to be in a lot of trouble if I would have found out about them. And probably caused me a heart attack. Now, they are just funny - some totally hilarious...and they are funny and we can laugh only because she made it out safe.

What I'm trying to say here is until our children come out the other end safely, who knows what the right thing to do is. We all have to use our best judgment. Instead of judging others parenting skills it is much more interesting to find out what has or has not worked for others...and then always decide for ourselves. Unfortunately, they don't come with a manual...at least mine didn't - believe me I looked!

good post -- and what I'm hoping for Nicole's children.

[martin II]

I think there are some good things about just about everyone's ideals that have been stated on raising children. Every parent is different - every child is different - and different parenting skills work for everyone.

When I was raising my daughter, I thought I did it all right. She was a great kid - I got more grief from my friends about having the "perfect" daughter. She never got in trouble; always did homework and things like that without being asked. She is now in college earning her CPA and Masters...and I have trouble adding two and two.

Now that she is over 21, we have been having those conversations that parents and children finally can have after the "grounding period" has passed. She did a lot of things I didn't know about, and she wasn't perfect, but she tells me that the fact that I was always there, being in her business made her stop many times in her tracks. I'm sure some of the things she has told me now would have caused her to be in a lot of trouble if I would have found out about them. And probably caused me a heart attack. Now, they are just funny - some totally hilarious...and they are funny and we can laugh only because she made it out safe.

What I'm trying to say here is until our children come out the other end safely, who knows what the right thing to do is. We all have to use our best judgment. Instead of judging others parenting skills it is much more interesting to find out what has or has not worked for others...and then always decide for ourselves. Unfortunately, they don't come with a manual...at least mine didn't - believe me I looked!


I agree.
One note on my daughter.
Once i was frying some hamburgers in the kitchen for everyone in the house. My daughter without and notice walked up next to me and announced 'I HAD SEX'

Without thinking and in some kind of shock, responded " WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS STUFF" she said 'because i Know you would want to know."
We then had a good conversation about the issue, brought her mother into the conversation and had a productive discussion on the issue.

Some days later she told me about some other things she had done that she thought i did not know about. I knew but had monitored the situation without her knowledge and found them not to be as serious as she thought they
were and had not brought them to her attention.

We talk and joke about it now as she now has two small children and keeps me informed of all of their activities and thinking daily.

[martin II]

bump your head? we've been talking about the children!

Bump your.someone has been tralking about oj book.

[weezer]

Bump your.someone has been tralking about oj book.

and the CHILDREN'S approval and participation.

[William Anthony]

The discussion digressed to what Simpson said or did not say in his work of fiction and his showing of taste or manners, if you will. Personally, I think it was disrespectful, because it was done in poor taste and did not show good manners, but I digress only momentarily. The focus should be on what the children thought and not what we think they thought, imho. It seems to me that they thought money was acceptable.

[martin II]

and the CHILDREN'S approval and participation.

Obviously the children think differently about their activities than you. The children are young adults and seem to be doing great with their young lives.

[weezer]

Obviously the children think differently about their activities than you. The children are young adults and seem to be doing great with their young lives.

obviously -- I simply said it gave me pause to my thoughts on them.

see, I don't know. you obviously have some sort of personal relationship and firsthand knowledge that the rest of us do not.

[limakey]

The Diane Downs case bears very resemblance to this case. In the Downs case the children were shot by their mother and she was found guilty. She wouldn't have been able to get the children back even if they wanted to live with her. Mary Winkler has her children back now even though she killed their father.

TV,

My post about the Downs' case was that a child did take the stand and pointed to her mother as the person who shot her and had her mother been aquitted, did not want to live with her mother.

Mary Winkler obviously had a strong case and she was given a sentence, she served it, she did everything the law told her she needed to do to get her children back. I did not follow the case closely, however, IMO, the Battered Woman Syndrome is a very risky defense and I can only think of one woman who used that defense that actually was aquitted--which was the woman in "The Burning Bed".

[limakey]

The discussion digressed to what Simpson said or did not say in his work of fiction and his showing of taste or manners, if you will. Personally, I think it was disrespectful, because it was done in poor taste and did not show good manners, but I digress only momentarily. The focus should be on what the children thought and not what we think they thought, imho. It seems to me that they thought money was acceptable.

William,

IMO, none of us have been in Mr. Simpson's situation. None of us have been the same situation as Sydney and Justin. However, Mr. Simpson came right out and said what the book was as well as saying why he did it, for the money. He made no excuses for it and no one has proven that he did not use the money on the things that he said he did.

Sydney and Justin know their father's situation, they know the money issues, they know how the public reacts to him in the media but they also have seen their father interact with the people who come up to him in the streets.

IMO, Simpson never would have done the book if he did not have the approval of the children. I am sure that the children know that millions were made off of their mother's death, media careers were launched simply based on their mother's death. They perhaps figured that at least with their "blood money", they will get the education that their mother always dreamed they have. With this money, perhaps they could fullfil some of their dreams their mother had from them.

Maybe, just maybe they thought that they knew their mother well enough, she would agree with their choices regarding the book. Perhaps they thought that it was acceptable to accept the money on this book because they know their father did commit the murders.

IMO, of course!

[martin II]

William,

IMO, none of us have been in Mr. Simpson's situation. None of us have been the same situation as Sydney and Justin. However, Mr. Simpson came right out and said what the book was as well as saying why he did it, for the money. He made no excuses for it and no one has proven that he did not use the money on the things that he said he did.

Sydney and Justin know their father's situation, they know the money issues, they know how the public reacts to him in the media but they also have seen their father interact with the people who come up to him in the streets.

IMO, Simpson never would have done the book if he did not have the approval of the children. I am sure that the children know that millions were made off of their mother's death, media careers were launched simply based on their mother's death. They perhaps figured that at least with their "blood money", they will get the education that their mother always dreamed they have. With this money, perhaps they could fullfil some of their dreams their mother had from them.

Maybe, just maybe they thought that they knew their mother well enough, she would agree with their choices regarding the book. Perhaps they thought that it was acceptable to accept the money on this book because they know their father did commit the murders.

IMO, of course!

It is also possible that these children, knowing more about the relationship between nicole and oj and believing their father was innocent has moved on with their lives and refuse to be stuck in the past.

[tv]

William,

IMO, none of us have been in Mr. Simpson's situation. None of us have been the same situation as Sydney and Justin. However, Mr. Simpson came right out and said what the book was as well as saying why he did it, for the money. He made no excuses for it and no one has proven that he did not use the money on the things that he said he did.

Sydney and Justin know their father's situation, they know the money issues, they know how the public reacts to him in the media but they also have seen their father interact with the people who come up to him in the streets.

IMO, Simpson never would have done the book if he did not have the approval of the children. I am sure that the children know that millions were made off of their mother's death, media careers were launched simply based on their mother's death. They perhaps figured that at least with their "blood money", they will get the education that their mother always dreamed they have. With this money, perhaps they could fullfil some of their dreams their mother had from them.

Maybe, just maybe they thought that they knew their mother well enough, she would agree with their choices regarding the book. Perhaps they thought that it was acceptable to accept the money on this book because they know their father did commit the murders.

IMO, of course!Limakey, I've never been in OJ Simpson's or his children's situation but viewing it from evey conceivable angle this was an insensitive, crass thing to do. Even if the children, in their immaturity, didn't understand that it was ill-advised then their mature father should have realized this. It's my understanding that the idea was Arnelle's and she should have known better also.

As far as this money allowing them to fulfill their mother's dreams of a college education for them -- OJ Simpson receives $26,000 a month from his NFL pension. If he can't squeeze tuition out of that then someone needs to help him set up a budget. He also does little side jobs of signing autographs and such. I don't understand what "money issues" you're referring to.

You can't really think that Nicole would have understood why the children supported the book and why it was written? I believe she would consider it a huge betrayal of her memory and her love for them, as any mother would.

Whether they believe their father killed their mother or not, there isn't any scenario in which it's acceptable for them to approve a book describing their mother nearly being decapitated and left lying in a river of her own blood.

[tv]

It is also possible that these children, knowing more about the relationship between nicole and oj and believing their father was innocent has moved on with their lives and refuse to be stuck in the past.

I don't consider honoring your mother's memory to be "stuck in the past." I can't believe the excuses people on this forum come up with to excuse OJ Simpson's insensitive and disgusting actions.

[tv]

TV,

My post about the Downs' case was that a child did take the stand and pointed to her mother as the person who shot her and had her mother been aquitted, did not want to live with her mother.

Mary Winkler obviously had a strong case and she was given a sentence, she served it, she did everything the law told her she needed to do to get her children back. I did not follow the case closely, however, IMO, the Battered Woman Syndrome is a very risky defense and I can only think of one woman who used that defense that actually was aquitted--which was the woman in "The Burning Bed".
There have been other women acquitted but it's rare. Mary Winkler was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and is out enjoying her life and her children. I don't feel she was justified in shooting your husband in the back while he was sleeping when she could just as easily walk out the door but that's a discussion for another forum.

The Downs case is completely different from the Simpson case. The children didn't witness their mother being killed. The children of Diane Downs know for certain that she pulled the trigger and the violence was against them personally.

[martin II]

I don't consider honoring your mother's memory to be "stuck in the past." I can't believe the excuses people on this forum come up with to excuse OJ Simpson's insensitive and disgusting actions.

I think that when unfortunate things happen to people, they should remember but they also have to continue to live for their future.Stuck in the past for me means not moving on, stuck on discussing the past and not being able to deal with daily issues of progress. We as posters are not in a position to tell ojs children what they should be doing as a result of their mothers death.imo

Oj doing that book was in my opinion not a very good idea. but that is only based on what i may have not done. In ojs case he said he did the book because he needed the money for himself and his family.Since he is perevented for his normal employment i assume he took this avenue to get money in the only was left available to him.imo

He did have a right to write the book regardless if some believe he didn't.

[tv]

I think that when unfortunate things happen to people, they should remember but they also have to continue to live for their future.Stuck in the past for me means not moving on, stuck on discussing the past and not being able to deal with daily issues of progress. We as posters are not in a position to tell ojs children what they should be doing as a result of their mothers death.imo

Oj doing that book was in my opinion not a very good idea. but that is only based on what i may have not done. In ojs case he said he did the book because he needed the money for himself and his family.Since he is perevented for his normal employment i assume he took this avenue to get money in the only was left available to him.imo

He did have a right to write the book regardless if some believe he didn't.

martin, I haven't tried to tell the Simpson children what to do. I'm voicing my opinion on a message board which doesn't affect their lives in the least. They could have progressed, moved on and not discussed the past without dishonoring their mother's memory.

There was no reason for him to try to make money in this way. $26,000 a month is a fortune to most people. He can well afford to have a luxurious home, cars and send two of his children to college with his $312,000 a year. He doesn't even have the excuse that it was either sell the book or starve.

By the way, I never said he didn't have the right to write the book. He had a legal right but I don't feel he had a moral right.

[martin II]

martin, I haven't tried to tell the Simpson children what to do. I'm voicing my opinion on a message board which doesn't affect their lives in the least. They could have progressed, moved on and not discussed the past without dishonoring their mother's memory.

There was no reason for him to try to make money in this way. $26,000 a month is a fortune to most people. He can well afford to have a luxurious home, cars and send two of his children to college with his $312,000 a year. He doesn't even have the excuse that it was either sell the book or starve.

By the way, I never said he didn't have the right to write the book. He had a legal right but I don't feel he had a moral right.

TV
I have no idea as to what Ojs monthly expenses including legal expenses he still has are so i cannot say what it takes for him to manage his resonsibilities/affairs. I also have no idea as to what his current income is.

I know i am not in position to count someone elses money.Maby you are.

Just because you may believe oj was guilty of murder does not mean that he cannot choose a home and life style that he believes he and his family deserves as long as he can pay for it especially since he was found to be not guilty by a criminal court jury. imo

[martin II]

martin, I haven't tried to tell the Simpson children what to do. I'm voicing my opinion on a message board which doesn't affect their lives in the least. They could have progressed, moved on and not discussed the past without dishonoring their mother's memory.

There was no reason for him to try to make money in this way. $26,000 a month is a fortune to most people. He can well afford to have a luxurious home, cars and send two of his children to college with his $312,000 a year. He doesn't even have the excuse that it was either sell the book or starve.

By the way, I never said he didn't have the right to write the book. He had a legal right but I don't feel he had a moral right.

TV

Fred is the one that actually put the book in the hands of the people and received the big time sum of $20,000 for all of his efforts after a biased judge took the manuscript from oj and gave it to fred. Oj never published one page of the book.Talking about moral rights.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
.Since he is perevented for his normal employment i assume he took this avenue to get money in the only was left available to him.imo

.

I see it's time for another installment of OJ as the victim.

[weezer]

I see it's time for another installment of OJ as the victim.

hey you! it's terrific to see you posting!!!!!!!!!!

somethings never change -- especially on this forum as well as orenthal's life.

everyone remember what orenthal said he did with the money HE got from his confession book? Seems to me I remember him saying he paid his bills -- I don't remember him saying anything about the children receiving a portion.

and why would arnelle benefit from Nicole's death?

[Redmama]

It seems that all opinions that are not in lock step with yours, are somehow a weird or wrong. SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Kind of like anyone that says something unkind about OJ is weird or wrong. I thought that is why we are all here - to give our opions and debate both sides.

[Redmama]

William,

IMO, none of us have been in Mr. Simpson's situation. None of us have been the same situation as Sydney and Justin. However, Mr. Simpson came right out and said what the book was as well as saying why he did it, for the money. He made no excuses for it and no one has proven that he did not use the money on the things that he said he did.

Sydney and Justin know their father's situation, they know the money issues, they know how the public reacts to him in the media but they also have seen their father interact with the people who come up to him in the streets.

IMO, Simpson never would have done the book if he did not have the approval of the children. I am sure that the children know that millions were made off of their mother's death, media careers were launched simply based on their mother's death. They perhaps figured that at least with their "blood money", they will get the education that their mother always dreamed they have. With this money, perhaps they could fullfil some of their dreams their mother had from them.

Maybe, just maybe they thought that they knew their mother well enough, she would agree with their choices regarding the book. Perhaps they thought that it was acceptable to accept the money on this book because they know their father did commit the murders.

IMO, of course!


In my opinion, that is really sick. Just when some of the talk about their mother might have quieted down, let's make more people talk about it in front of the children by writing a book. OJ is the adult in this situation, the children are children, no matter their age. There are other ways to make money - flip hamburgers if you need to - geeeesh - imo.

[martin II]

In my opinion, that is really sick. Just when some of the talk about their mother might have quieted down, let's make more people talk about it in front of the children by writing a book. OJ is the adult in this situation, the children are children, no matter their age. There are other ways to make money - flip hamburgers if you need to - geeeesh - imo.

I think the children decided that they did not want to flip burgers so they didn't. H.C thought there would be great public interest in a book by oj about his life with nicole and one chapter of if he did it nonsense.So they paid him about $1,000,000 for the manuscript only and royalties to LBA.Oj never sold one book. fred did that.

[Redmama]

I think the children decided that they did not want to flip burgers so they didn't.

As I said, I don't think it should have been their choice.

[martin II]

As I said, I don't think it should have been their choice.

exactly what choice

[Redmama]

exactly what choice

The choice that their father made to write a book about their mother. He should never have put them (the children) in the position of being involved in a manuscript about their mother (unless it was in the most loving way) that might have resulted in them needing therapy or having issues in the future. Even if they are not put in this position, their father should have never taken the chance that they "might" have issues, imo. "Might" in anyway is not worth it when it comes to our children.

That is exactly what choice.

[limakey]

Limakey, I've never been in OJ Simpson's or his children's situation but viewing it from evey conceivable angle this was an insensitive, crass thing to do. Even if the children, in their immaturity, didn't understand that it was ill-advised then their mature father should have realized this. It's my understanding that the idea was Arnelle's and she should have known better also.

You can't really think that Nicole would have understood why the children supported the book and why it was written? I believe she would consider it a huge betrayal of her memory and her love for them, as any mother would.

Whether they believe their father killed their mother or not, there isn't any scenario in which it's acceptable for them to approve a book describing their mother nearly being decapitated and left lying in a river of her own blood.

TV,

What Nicole might think about the book was not part of the equation, it is what her children thought of their mother. There is not one shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother. There is no evidence that Nicole was an emotionally distant mother. There is no evidence that Sydney and Justin ever blamed their mother for the divorcre or for that matter their father. Without any shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother, it leads me to believe that is why they approved of the book.

Now perhaps, Nicole may consider have considered it a betrayal of her memory. However, if this is the case, this book is small beans compared to what some of Nicole's "best friends" said about her.

There is no doubt that Mr. Simpson and all of his children knew that the public was going to go bonkers over this book. However, nothing that has been said about Simpson in the media is any different then the comments that have been repeated over the years. The Simpsons, all of the, have simply stopped caring what other people think.

I know several G's have posted negative comments about Nicole's family. However, I have always defended them because I don't greed was a motive. I do not think greed is the motive of the Goldmans either.

Also, you believe that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole--the children don't.

In regards to flipping burgers. I do remember that Nicole was defended when she asked for a child support raise from the $10,000.00 a month she received. I remember how one poster made similar comments--why didn't she flip burgers for her children? Why did she risk the income she did have by using Simpson's address? Why was Simpson demonized when he told Nicole that she could no longer use his address? That this letter proved he didn't care about his kids?

TV, I truly believe never say never.....none of us truly know what we would do in this situation. However, from the posts that I have read from the parents on this board, I can very easily believe that if they were in a desperate situation, that their children's needs and dreams would be the number priority in their lives and probably wouldn't care what others thought.

It also appears to me from the comments that parents have posted about their relationship with their children that the parents would listen to what their children had to say and that would tip the scales one way or the other.

[Super Volcano]

I feel so sorry for them, i wonder what they think - they must be aware that so many people think that their father did commit the murders ( btw, i do think he did it )

This is a song, that to me, really sums up that every child is precious. We were all once little children. Hope you enjoy. Pay attention to the third verse, "consider the sweet tender children who suffer...etc." Very touching. Makes me cry!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne178Ms2SFw

[martin II]

The choice that their father made to write a book about their mother. He should never have put them (the children) in the position of being involved in a manuscript about their mother (unless it was in the most loving way) that might have resulted in them needing therapy or having issues in the future. Even if they are not put in this position, their father should have never taken the chance that they "might" have issues, imo. "Might" in anyway is not worth it when it comes to our children.

That is exactly what choice.


The children received therapy after the murders until it was deemed that they no longer needed it.Hc created a contract that required a company LBA
to be created for the commisions from the sale of the book if published.ALL four agreed to received shares in this company.Oj wrote the manuscript with the help of a ghost writer and was paid about $1,00,000.

Oj wrote the book based on his recollection of his life with Nicole. A book showing Nicole only in a good light would not have been the truth as she had her warts as he did.The murder chapter was what i call the 'HOOK' made up story of how the murders happened to promote the sales.

In 14 years there has been no complaints from any of the children against oj for the murders and they are now adults.imo

[martin II]

So many books were written about oj and the murders by people claiming to know the facts of the murders and oj and nicoles life and they all made big money.Oj said that he was surprised that H.C. would pay that kind of money for his manuscript of his life and the if i did it book.
It may be that after thinking about it and understanding that he needed money, the family as a group decided that they could no longer be controlled by what some people may think about them. He agreed to write the manuscript and ALL four of the children decided to share in the profits if any were made.

Some people have made all kinds of negative comments about the status of the children and none have turned out to be true as all seem to be doing quite well. Two are in 3-4 year college and the older two are employed in their chosen fields of work. So far there does not seem to be a problem.

[tv]

TV,

What Nicole might think about the book was not part of the equation, it is what her children thought of their mother. There is not one shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother. There is no evidence that Nicole was an emotionally distant mother. There is no evidence that Sydney and Justin ever blamed their mother for the divorcre or for that matter their father. Without any shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother, it leads me to believe that is why they approved of the book.

Now perhaps, Nicole may consider have considered it a betrayal of her memory. However, if this is the case, this book is small beans compared to what some of Nicole's "best friends" said about her.

There is no doubt that Mr. Simpson and all of his children knew that the public was going to go bonkers over this book. However, nothing that has been said about Simpson in the media is any different then the comments that have been repeated over the years. The Simpsons, all of the, have simply stopped caring what other people think.

I know several G's have posted negative comments about Nicole's family. However, I have always defended them because I don't greed was a motive. I do not think greed is the motive of the Goldmans either.

Also, you believe that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole--the children don't.

In regards to flipping burgers. I do remember that Nicole was defended when she asked for a child support raise from the $10,000.00 a month she received. I remember how one poster made similar comments--why didn't she flip burgers for her children? Why did she risk the income she did have by using Simpson's address? Why was Simpson demonized when he told Nicole that she could no longer use his address? That this letter proved he didn't care about his kids?

TV, I truly believe never say never.....none of us truly know what we would do in this situation. However, from the posts that I have read from the parents on this board, I can very easily believe that if they were in a desperate situation, that their children's needs and dreams would be the number priority in their lives and probably wouldn't care what others thought.

It also appears to me from the comments that parents have posted about their relationship with their children that the parents would listen to what their children had to say and that would tip the scales one way or the other.

Limakey, I really am astonished at some of your comments. How could the love of the children for their mother be the reason they approved of the book? What exactly do you mean by that statement and how did you come to that conclusion?

The book is NOT small beans compared to what Nicole's friends have said. How can you compare friends to flesh and blood children that she carried and birthed? I don't believe any of her friends wrote a book with a chapter on how they slaughtered her IF they did.

Why didn't she flip burgers for her children?? Because they had a wealthy father that's why. You keep talking about this family like they live in cardboard boxes on the street. The children are not and never have been in a "desperate situation" financially but If they wanted to make money as young adults there is nothing wrong with flipping burgers. It sure beats seeing your father describe, in print, for public consumption, how he butchered your mother. If you think that OJ Simpson was so concerned with their hopes and dreams why didn't they get any of the money he received from Harper Collins?

I truly mean no disrespect, limakey, but I felt like I was in an alternate universe when I was reading your post.

[tv]

So many books were written about oj and the murders by people claiming to know the facts of the murders and oj and nicoles life and they all made big money.Oj said that he was surprised that H.C. would pay that kind of money for his manuscript of his life and the if i did it book.
It may be that after thinking about it and understanding that he needed money, the family as a group decided that they could no longer be controlled by what some people may think about them. He agreed to write the manuscript and ALL four of the children decided to share in the profits if any were made.

Some people have made all kinds of negative comments about the status of the children and none have turned out to be true as all seem to be doing quite well. Two are in 3-4 year college and the older two are employed in their chosen fields of work. So far there does not seem to be a problem.

If they're doing so well what was their motivation for the book? According to what you've said before they needed the money. They seem to have done just find without the money so what was the point?

[martin II]

If they're doing so well what was their motivation for the book? According to what you've said before they needed the money. They seem to have done just find without the money so what was the point?

Tv
When i said they, the children, seem to be doing well i was referring to their personal and social development as individuals. I have no idea as to what their financial situation is. It was oj that said he was surprised that HC would pay him that kind of money for his thoughts and he also said he did it for the money and he paid his taxes. Calculating ojs money and what he SHOULD be able tro do with it is not my expertise or my interest because almost any thing i would offer woud be wrong.imo

[martin II]

Limakey, I really am astonished at some of your comments. How could the love of the children for their mother be the reason they approved of the book? What exactly do you mean by that statement and how did you come to that conclusion?

The book is NOT small beans compared to what Nicole's friends have said. How can you compare friends to flesh and blood children that she carried and birthed? I don't believe any of her friends wrote a book with a chapter on how they slaughtered her IF they did.

Why didn't she flip burgers for her children?? Because they had a wealthy father that's why. You keep talking about this family like they live in cardboard boxes on the street. The children are not and never have been in a "desperate situation" financially but If they wanted to make money as young adults there is nothing wrong with flipping burgers. It sure beats seeing your father describe, in print, for public consumption, how he butchered your mother. If you think that OJ Simpson was so concerned with their hopes and dreams why didn't they get any of the money he received from Harper Collins?

I truly mean no disrespect, limakey, but I felt like I was in an alternate universe when I was reading your post.

In the IF I DID IT manuscript that i read,oj talked about some personal problem he and Nicole had.Nicole even described some of these issues in the letter where she took the blame for some issues.

Neither were saints and both had WARTS.

In the book oj did not speak about Nicole freebasing or the lesbin affairs that
Faye Resnick testified to.As a matter of fact when told about this he said he did not believe it.

Anyone that read the murder chapter knows it was all nonsense demanded by
the publisher to sell books.

We know that oj said he paid some home and other taxes from the $1,000,000
advance he received and the deal was set up by HC for the commisisons to go to the four children.But what we dont know is how the children benefited
from the advance of the $1,000,000 oj received.
Obviously the children, all four, decided that they wanted to participate and that was their decision to make.imo

Oj had no responsibility to detail to the public exactly what he did with that money.

[martin II]

Limakey, I really am astonished at some of your comments. How could the love of the children for their mother be the reason they approved of the book? What exactly do you mean by that statement and how did you come to that conclusion?

The book is NOT small beans compared to what Nicole's friends have said. How can you compare friends to flesh and blood children that she carried and birthed? I don't believe any of her friends wrote a book with a chapter on how they slaughtered her IF they did.

Why didn't she flip burgers for her children?? Because they had a wealthy father that's why. You keep talking about this family like they live in cardboard boxes on the street. The children are not and never have been in a "desperate situation" financially but If they wanted to make money as young adults there is nothing wrong with flipping burgers. It sure beats seeing your father describe, in print, for public consumption, how he butchered your mother. If you think that OJ Simpson was so concerned with their hopes and dreams why didn't they get any of the money he received from Harper Collins?

I truly mean no disrespect, limakey, but I felt like I was in an alternate universe when I was reading your post.

In the IF I DID IT BOOK oj never admitted that he killed nicole.

[martin II]

Limakey, I really am astonished at some of your comments. How could the love of the children for their mother be the reason they approved of the book? What exactly do you mean by that statement and how did you come to that conclusion?

The book is NOT small beans compared to what Nicole's friends have said. How can you compare friends to flesh and blood children that she carried and birthed? I don't believe any of her friends wrote a book with a chapter on how they slaughtered her IF they did.

Why didn't she flip burgers for her children?? Because they had a wealthy father that's why. You keep talking about this family like they live in cardboard boxes on the street. The children are not and never have been in a "desperate situation" financially but If they wanted to make money as young adults there is nothing wrong with flipping burgers. It sure beats seeing your father describe, in print, for public consumption, how he butchered your mother. If you think that OJ Simpson was so concerned with their hopes and dreams why didn't they get any of the money he received from Harper Collins?

I truly mean no disrespect, limakey, but I felt like I was in an alternate universe when I was reading your post.


Long before the book was written there were lots of public opinions of oj written by those that opposed his not guilty verdict. The children were expossed to all of it and obviously they dissagree.

It seems that they have decided to ignor what some in the public writes about him as they love their father and will not allow public opinion to direct or influence their lives or their decisions.As it should be.

[weezer]

Long before the book was written there were lots of public opinions of oj written by those that opposed his not guilty verdict. The children were expossed to all of it and obviously they dissagree.

It seems that they have decided to ignor what some in the public writes about him as they love their father and will not allow public opinion to direct or influence their lives or their decisions.As it should be.

". . .Simpson's eldest daughter, Arnelle Simpson, came up with the concept for the book along with a friend, Raffles Van Exel, according to a deposition she gave this week. . ."

". . . Ms. Simpson said in the deposition that she took the idea to her father. He told her, "I have to think about it,'' she testified, but eventually he agreed. . ."

". . ."This company was an effort to begin to do something for herself, . . ."

anyone here believe arnelle was entitled/deserving of anything from Nicole's death?

[socaldiva]

for herself[/B], . . ."

anyone here believe arnelle was entitled/deserving of anything from Nicole's death?

Gawd, she makes it sound as though she's been working for years in a coal mine to support orphans:tongue:

I don't think she is deserving of anything of Nicole's & wonder why she would want to take away from Sydney & Justin. Oh wait, no I don't. She's OJ's daughter & she's just as self centered as he is. :D

[Super Volcano]

This is a double post *sorry*

I posted this message, and it went HUGELY ignored, because everyone is hung up on O.J Simpson :) (which is a good topic). This is for those who truly know the innocents of children.


This is a song, that to me, really sums up that every child is precious. We were all once little children. Hope you enjoy. Pay attention to the third verse, "consider the sweet tender children who suffer...etc." Very touching. Makes me cry!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne178Ms2SFw
______

[weezer]

Gawd, she makes it sound as though she's been working for years in a coal mine to support orphans:tongue:

I don't think she is deserving of anything of Nicole's & wonder why she would want to take away from Sydney & Justin. Oh wait, no I don't. She's OJ's daughter & she's just as self centered as he is. :D

I've always thought arnelle must have truly hated Nicole and it seems she has the same problem with Christie. imo

[martin II]

". . .Simpson's eldest daughter, Arnelle Simpson, came up with the concept for the book along with a friend, Raffles Van Exel, according to a deposition she gave this week. . ."

". . . Ms. Simpson said in the deposition that she took the idea to her father. He told her, "I have to think about it,'' she testified, but eventually he agreed. . ."

". . ."This company was an effort to begin to do something for herself, . . ."

anyone here believe arnelle was entitled/deserving of anything from Nicole's death?

silly question

[weezer]

silly question

yep - I think so too. but then so is your defense of orenthal that he 'did it for the kids' --