Today, 9/10 black's agree "oj probably is guilty or involved"

Whites thought - he did it - but he should plead guilty and spare eveyone the budon of a trial". The facts proved he was guilty; and the facts were too solid and many to be explained away.

In this case there was a divide from the start. Rascim is such that all the layers of LE, media and white society can not see the reality of racsim in modern america. Sure they can recognize it when it's in-the-face ie N*** N***'! But it's about much more if you LOOK.

Why look at unpleasant things? So, we don't look.

Blacks thought - he did it - but took the White/Anglo justice system to heart, where a person is able to plead their innocence and inturn receive a fair trial. They said he was guilty but the case was typical of the way blacks get fixed up with extra evidence, some untruthful testimony by LE and drowned by the torrents of DAs, assistant DAs, departments, experts, pr & media, scientists and ability to reach the entire public.

They new that maybe oj could be the one to shake the whole LE system until white people noticed and had to look and see it for all its flaws, ingrained bias and failings. OJ was going to use the whiteman system to beat them off with if he could but the theme was about the ingrained abuses that exist.

OJ had to win however for the real message blacks needed to be heard. the support for oj today shows this - 9/10 blacks say he was involved.

[jotun]

Freshwater-All
Shouldn't this RACIST GARBAGE be on the race thread????????
jotun

Whites hate to consider rasicim, we do not what to think such a thing still exists. It still does.

It was whole 2nd glove/Furhman debacle. It shoved rasicim in our white faces and we hated it. We called everything the race card toward them (as if Rodney King was white - we said the jury was an all black female jury - yeah sisters always let murdering brothers of all the time!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


those ignorant jurors.

Socal,

Now your saying the jurors, based their decision on MF solely?

[weezer]

Alan Dershowitz: "I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. …"

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer

*Snipped*

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.

fbg,

I cannot disagree with you more, and just how wrong this statement is!

1. Abuse: Was not, what it was made out to be!
2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

The evidence could not withstand the challenge, and it wasn't because the defense was deception, it was because it wasn't presented legitimately...

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

nettathirty, ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of Simpson's innocence? It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust

August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!

nettathirty, you're trying to play some game that honestly I'm not interested in playing.

The fact is that Simpson wore the killer's gloves. The gloves were the exact same kind and size that he was shown wearing many times before. The gloves were his. The blood on one of the gloves was his blood. There were fibers on that glove that came from his Bronco carpeting. There were fibers on that glove that came from the clothing he wore that night.

If you want to imagine fantasies that have nothing to do with the reality of the evidence and these murders than go right ahead, you're not alone. Other posters who like you refuse to face the truth post the same kind of fantasies.

Posters who understand that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole rely on the reality of the known facts and evidence. I certainly don't speak for all of those posters here but the fact is we argue the truth, we don't play silly games. Maybe someone else might want to play along with you but I'll pass, thank you.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



*snip*

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

Hi Netta,

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories. The evidence found on the glove points to OJ. EVERYTHING points to OJ. You want us to consider that the glove was planted......what evidence tells us it was? That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*Snipped*

That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?

- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

[nettathirty]

[quote]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[b]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..


This is what I'm talking about!

[bobaugust]

[quote]Originally posted by nettathirty
[b]

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..


This is what I'm talking about!

nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?

nettathirty, the fact is that Nicole's neighbors never heard Ron and Simpson yell at each other. All they heard was the dog barking, so they weren't in a better position. Nicole's closest neighbor was Eva Stein and she testified she went to sleep about 10:00 and was later awaken by dogs barking.

No one knows how Simpson cut himself but the fact is that Simpson had to have cut himself to have left his blood at the murder scene. Once again something you can't seem to grasp, a logical reasonable inference.

Your claim about the glove is ridiculous. First of all the glove did not have to be removed finger by finger. If you had watched the end of the glove demonstration you would have seen Simpson snap each glove in a fraction of a second. Besides the fact your comment that right handed people remove their right hand first is irrelevant. Simpson never intentionally took of one glove let alone two. And if he did remove one glove to check for a pulse he would have taken off his right glove since he was right handed. And if he had intentionally taken his left glove off he certainly would not have left it there or thrown it under one of the plants in the dark garden area.

Simpson may have returned to Ron to make sure he was dead. Simpson had no idea what it took to kill someone. Or Simpson may have returned looking for his glove and hat but never saw them and didn't want to spend any more time looking. He had to get back home as quickly as possible.

You ask why would Mandel and Aaronson's attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicole's condo? Because if the murders had already been committed the front gate would have been open and her body would have been clearly visible from from the sidewalk just like it was when it was seen about two and half hours later by Sukru Boztep and Bettina Rasmussen.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

I am NOT obsessed over MF. You said that the defense was not deceptive. THEY said that MF planted the glove.

[tazzybaby]

[quote]Originally posted by nettathirty
[b]

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

*snip*

This is what I'm talking about!

This whole post is exactly what I'm talking about. hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

How do you know that OJ moved the menu? How do you know that he "positioned" her legs?

You don't.

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusions that you did. I don't want a big exchange of sarcastic remarks. If you want me to consider your theory, then please explain.

OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole... He would not have with his 2 children asleep upstairs with the possibility of them waking up and discovering their mother killed in such a horrible way.

Also the killer could not have left this scene without being splashed in blood.

Someone else is definately involved in this murder.

Was OJ involved... that is entirely another discussion.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

There was NO evidence that anyone other than Orenthal committed these murders.

Socal,

There was NO evidence that the man arrested and taken into custody in the Ramsey case committed her murder????????

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


What on earth are you talking about now?

Looks like Netta is serving up apples & oranges again.

Socal,

You and the other (G's) say, well if there was evidence of someone other than OJ and the 2 victims at Bundy, where is it.. I think the Ramsey's case prove that you can have a horrible situation like this and apparently there not be evidence of the killer..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


There was unidentified DNA left at the Ramsey crime scene. LE put it in the FBI database & did not come back with a match.

Being that you want to draw a parallel here, where is the unidentified DNA at Bundy?

There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Who knows WHEN the blonde hair fell

.

The blonde hair was found on the glove.. You might want to reconsider that answer, or think it through?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder


You mean like DNA in John Bennett's panties?

Who is John Bennett?

[nettathirty]

[quote]Originally posted by X Richmonder

Originally posted by nettathirty


Who is John Bennett? [/QUOTE
Jon Benet, you know who I'm talking about. Just respond to the post which was about the DNA in her panties.

Oh, i'm sorry! That is news to me.. I'll have to research it!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

nettathirty, it's comical when you try to argue facts when you have no idea what you're talking about.

There was no blond hair found on the killer's glove, there was one short light brown Caucasian hair. Deedrick testified that hair may very well have come from Ron Goldman.

Fuhrman and Roberts thought there was a possible fingerprint in the blood on the brass deadbolt on the rear gate. If it was a fingerprint it probably was Simpson's since all of the other relevant physical evidence in this case tells us that there were only three people at Bundy that night. The two victims and Simpson. And we pretty much know that when Simpson left Bundy he was wearing only one glove and bleeding from a cut on his bare left hand.

June 29, 1995
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

The hair belonged to Nicole and there was no unidentified fingerprint on the gate.

That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt".

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Simpsonese
That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt".

Simpsonese, there was no blond hair found on the killer's glove. There was no hand print ever found.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust

August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Simpsonese, there was no blond hair found on the killer's glove. There was no hand print ever found.

bobaugust

Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..

nettathirty, yes you do talk comical.

Deedrick said he had no naturally shed hair from Ron to compare with but that the light brown caucasian hair did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics near the root of the hair as other samples of Ron's hairs. That in no way eliminates the hair coming from Ron. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

It's always funny when someone as uninformed of the facts, the evidence, and what witnesses testified to like you are makes claims that the defense attorneys never made. Good job.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!

nettathirty, no what I'm saying is that there was no blond hair ever found on the glove. There was no palm print ever found in blood.

There was a light brown Caucasian hair found on the glove.
There was a possible finger print seen in blood on the brass deadbolt of the rear gate at Bundy.
The only palm print found in this case was found on Nicole's black Cherokee Jeep on the outside of the passenger side rear fender.

I simply stated the facts. I leave the fantasy theories for you and other posters to make who can't seem to understand the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

bobaugust

August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?

nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust

August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder


Bob, I admire you fortitude. I just hope you aren't too upset when you find out all the people you have been debating are between 11 and 14 years of age.

X Richmond,

Rise above the NG's tactics of evading the real issues, and resulting to mudd slinging! Your G' , you guys answer the tough questions!:lol:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...

nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

August,

It could have very well been someone else's!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

It could have very well been someone else's!

nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust

August,

Then, why not have it tested?