OJ Simpson: Parenting his children in the aftermath

The only eason OJ Simpson was not convicted in court is because in the first trial, the jury was not his peer. He never did anything for African Americans. He wanted to live with white people and always had and still does pick white girls to hang around. The people in the civil trial were definitely his peers and found him guilty. I feel sorry for the jurors in the first trial. How misled they were to believe he was their hero.

[jotun]

Originally posted by KATHRYN A. HAAS
The only eason OJ Simpson was not convicted in court is because in the first trial, the jury was not his peer. He never did anything for African Americans. The people in the civil trial were definitely his peers and found him guilty.

WHAT UTTER NONSENCE!!!!!!!!
O.J WAS AQUITTED IN THE MURDER TRIAL BECAUSE THE JURY DIDN'T BELIEVE THE POLICE OR THE EVIDENCE.I AM WHITE AND NEITHER DID I.THAT WAS NOT A ALL BLACK JURY.THERE WAS 2 WHITE WOMEN & A LATINO MAN.

IN THE MONEY TRIAL THE JURY WAS NOT O.J.'S PEERS.WHAT A BUNCH OF MISFITS.THE DIRTY DOZEN.NOT ONE BLACK ON THAT JURY,OR MILLIONAIRE.
THEY FOUND HIM LIABLE. O.J. IS STILL NOT GUILTY.
jotun

[Cornblossom]

Murder trial:
The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

Civil trial:
Juror 199 (Seat 1): A U.S. postal worker.He was of mixed Asian and black descent and has a bachelor's degree in math from Cal State Fresno.
Juror 333 (Seat 7): A black grandmother in her 60s.
Alternate jurors:
Seat 8, Badge 295: Black woman in her 40s.
So much for having no African Americans on the civil trial.

The phrase "a jury of one's peers" is a part of the American lexicon, yet surprisingly it nowhere appears in the Constitution.

Originally posted by socaldiva


You really expect the civil court to have gone out & fetched a MILLIONAIRE in order for it to have been "fair"? What a hoot!

Orenthal was acquitted in the criminal trial because those jurors were ignorant & didn't understand DNA & they said they didn't think the case had anything to do with domestic violence After rendering their verdict, one juror gave Orenthal a black power salute (as though OJ considers himself black ) and another black juror said "we've got to take care of our own". They were ignorant & had an agenda & it wasn't to serve justice.

p.s. what's with the caps? It's not as though it gives your arguement more strength.

Way to go Diva!!!

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks sweet Dove. Hope you are doing good

Diva I'm doing fine. You have a good day!
You sure told them! You go get'em.
I can't stand OJ!!!!

Originally posted by jotun


WHAT UTTER NONSENCE!!!!!!!!
O.J WAS AQUITTED IN THE MURDER TRIAL BECAUSE THE JURY DIDN'T BELIEVE THE POLICE OR THE EVIDENCE.I AM WHITE AND NEITHER DID I.THAT WAS NOT A ALL BLACK JURY.THERE WAS 2 WHITE WOMEN & A LATINO MAN.

IN THE MONEY TRIAL THE JURY WAS NOT O.J.'S PEERS.WHAT A BUNCH OF MISFITS.THE DIRTY DOZEN.NOT ONE BLACK ON THAT JURY,OR MILLIONAIRE.
THEY FOUND HIM LIABLE. O.J. IS STILL NOT GUILTY.
jotun

I usually just lurk here and, of course, the trial was some 10 years ago. That said, I do recall having watched most of the trial and I remember quite well most of the evidence that was introduced.

In the criminal trial, it was a clear example of jury nullification. There was little doubt that OJ killed the two victims. He had the motive, means, opportunity and the time. There was no way, however, that the jury would convict given the way they felt about US history and other issues that had little to do with OJ. He was also obviously well-liked and admired by the jury. Therefore, no conviction, the issue of reasonable doubt to the contrary notwithstanding. The jury was also bamboozled by the "Dream Team" led by the admittedly charming, Johnnie Cochran. Let's also not forget the tales told by M. Furhman in his desire to avoid the title of racist, the general bungling of the L.A. P.D. and, of course, the distractions rasied between members of the prosecution. Judge Ito did his part as well.

As to the civil trial, on the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence as used in civil cases, he was fouind liable. Pretty convincing if you ask me. Very simple stuff.

You may believe as you wish and it's nice that OJ still has some admirers because Lord knows he could use some in his present position as a world-class pariah.

Yes, you may certainly still believe that he is innocent. All I have to say about that is they ddn't find any of the victims' blood in my car or on my socks.

So here's to OJ and the whole crowd! I sure enjoyed watching the trial.

[Thinking]

Originally posted by gnm109


I usually just lurk here and, of course, the trial was some 10 years ago. That said, I do recall having watched most of the trial and I remember quite well most of the evidence that was introduced.

In the criminal trial, it was a clear example of jury nullification. There was little doubt that OJ killed the two victims. He had the motive, means, opportunity and the time. There was no way, however, that the jury would convict given the way they felt about US history and other issues that had little to do with OJ. He was also obviously well-liked and admired by the jury. Therefore, no conviction, the issue of reasonable doubt to the contrary notwithstanding. The jury was also bamboozled by the "Dream Team" led by the admittedly charming, Johnnie Cochran. Let's also not forget the tales told by M. Furhman in his desire to avoid the title of racist, the general bungling of the L.A. P.D. and, of course, the distractions rasied between members of the prosecution. Judge Ito did his part as well.

As to the civil trial, on the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence as used in civil cases, he was fouind liable. Pretty convincing if you ask me. Very simple stuff.

You may believe as you wish and it's nice that OJ still has some admirers because Lord knows he could use some in his present position as a world-class pariah.

Yes, you may certainly still believe that he is innocent. All I have to say about that is they ddn't find any of the victims' blood in my car or on my socks.

So here's to OJ and the whole crowd! I sure enjoyed watching the trial.

I am NOT one of OJ's fans. But you are sooooo wrong in your wishful thinking of what happened in that trial. You say there was little doubt, but that is YOUR slant on the trial, certainly not mine. Call it jury nullification if you will, the facts are that the prosecution never proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' that OJ did it. And if you can't see reasonable doubt in the actions of the police investigation, you never will. Keep in mind that the LA police were convicted of over 400 cases of tampering, planting and manufacturing evidence SINCE the OJ trial. If I dare state even ONE item of doubt, it will start a whole thing all over again, and even though there IS no race card, most of the people viewing this trial think only in black and white.
Case not proven - verdict: NOT Guilty.

[jotun]

Originally posted by Cornblossom
Murder trial:
The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

Civil trial:
Juror 333 (Seat 7): A black grandmother in her 60s.
Alternate jurors:
Seat 8, Badge 295: Black woman in her 40s.
So much for having no African Americans on the civil trial.

Money Trial
Juror 333 did NOT VOTE.Was DISMISSED during deliberations.
Seems she was Darden's employee's
MOTHER. Did NOT VOTE.

Seat 8 Badge 295 was an ALTERNATE.Did NOT VOTE.
She was angry at the verdict.Did NOT VOTE.

So there were NO voting blacks on the that jury. jotun

Originally posted by Thinking


I am NOT one of OJ's fans. But you are sooooo wrong in your wishful thinking of what happened in that trial. You say there was little doubt, but that is YOUR slant on the trial, certainly not mine. Call it jury nullification if you will, the facts are that the prosecution never proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' that OJ did it. And if you can't see reasonable doubt in the actions of the police investigation, you never will. Keep in mind that the LA police were convicted of over 400 cases of tampering, planting and manufacturing evidence SINCE the OJ trial. If I dare state even ONE item of doubt, it will start a whole thing all over again, and even though there IS no race card, most of the people viewing this trial think only in black and white.
Case not proven - verdict: NOT Guilty.

1. Criminal jury voted him not guilty. They were simply wrong.

2. Civil case proven, OJ properly found liable. Present value of judgment including punitive damages and 10% interest under C.C.P. is around $85,000,000.

That jury said he should pay under a preponderance of the evidence.

3. Case closed. Nothing you could say will ever change my mind.

Originally posted by socaldiva



Thank goodness, another poster that is able to see the truth of what transpired!!! Welcome & please stick around

Why thank you very much Ms. Diva. I don't post here too much but I couldn't resist talking about OJ.

Regards,

gmn109 (NoCal lurker)

To quote Dr. Henry Lee " something wrong". The jury could not convict if there was ANY doubt.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by gnm109


1. Criminal jury voted him not guilty. They were simply wrong.

gnm109,

You have got to be kidding, I think you need to re-read the post on this board, this time with an open-mind!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder


People have been sent to death row for less. In the totallity of the evidence he should have been convicted. Everything pointed towards him and nothing towards anybody else. He was lucky.

He was lucky, to have a COP who swore to tell the truth.. Willing to get on the stand and lie, what LUCK! gmab

[jotun]

Originally posted by gnm109

1. Criminal jury voted him not guilty. They were simply wrong.

2. Civil case proven, OJ properly found liable. Present value of judgment including punitive damages and 10% interest under C.C.P. is around $85,000,000.

3. Case closed. Nothing you could say will ever change my mind.

Murder Trial
NOT GUILTY simply right.O.J.is FREE.
Money Trial
Simply WRONG.
How much of that 85
million do the plantiffs have. What little seiged was taken by their lawyers.Just like O.J.told the media.

You are right about one thing.
CASE CLOSED.

WHO is trying to change YOUR mind??? Certainly not US.
jotun

Are they blind? I know its their daddy but Nichole was their mom.
How can they do this? I'm sure Nichole has turned over in her grave.

How can the haters live with such hate?

Most likely NB has hopes that OJ can be set free and her killers caught if not already dead.

[limakey]

Eddie,

None of the children's statements about that night were ever entered into evidence. However, in several books, it was written that Sydney linked her mother's tearful and vocal fight with her best friend as a direct link to why the police were taking them out of their home.

In interviews, Mr. Simpson has said that Nicole was not a "crier", and that Sydney would know the difference between her mother's crying and "giggling". Apparently Nicole wasn't a giggler either.

IMO, I think Sydney and Justin should have been the best timeline witnesses but OJ and the Browns did not want the children to testify.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

I don't know how you think they could have offered up a timeline.

It hasn't stopped Bob August, and his timeline defies evidence, logic and witness testimony!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



It hasn't stopped Bob August, and his timeline defies evidence, logic and witness testimony!

nettathirty, the timeline I believe is supported by witness testimony and the known facts and evidence in this case. A time line that Simpson's criminal defense team argued as well as the plaintiffs attorneys in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, the timeline I believe is supported by witness testimony and the known facts and evidence in this case. A time line that Simpson's criminal defense team argued as well as the plaintiffs attorneys in the civil trial.

bobaugust

August,

The defense in the Criminal Trial didn't argue that timeline, they were refuting the states timeline.. There is a difference!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

The defense in the Criminal Trial didn't argue that timeline, they were refuting the states timeline.. There is a difference!

nettathirty, again you're showing how uninformed you are. The criminal defense argued the murders happened after 10:30 using Robert Heidstra testimony as their evidence.

The criminal defense used Mandel and Aaronson's testimony to show that the murders were not committed when they walked by Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30.

The criminal defense use the testimony from Harman, Pilnak, and Telander to support their argument that the murders happened after 10:30.

Learn the facts.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Learn the facts.

bobaugust

August,

The defense wasn't trying to prove what time the murders occured, they don't have too.. They were disproving what the prosecution was claiming..

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

The defense wasn't trying to prove what time the murders occured, they don't have too.. They were disproving what the prosecution was claiming..

nettathirty, no the defense didn't have to prove anything unless they were trying to disprove the prosecutions claims. That's what they did when Cochran argued that the murders happened after 10:30 basing his claim on the testimony of Heidstra, Mandel, Aaronson. Harman, Pilnak, and Telander.

Cochran's witnesses and arguments disprove your claims as well that the murders were committed even earlier than the prosecution claimed.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, no the defense didn't have to prove anything unless they were trying to disprove the prosecutions claims. That's what they did when Cochran argued that the murders happened after 10:30 basing his claim on the testimony of Heidstra, Mandel, Aaronson. Harman, Pilnak, and Telander.

Cochran's witnesses and arguments disprove your claims as well that the murders were committed even earlier than the prosecution claimed.

bobaugust

August,

If he was not disproving Clarks claim, JC would have known that when Aaronson and Mandel walked passed the Condo at 10:30p or shortly there after, that Nicole and Ron were already dead...

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

If he was not disproving Clarks claim, JC would have known that when Aaronson and Mandel walked passed the Condo at 10:30p or shortly there after, that Nicole and Ron were already dead...

Nettathirty, I have no idea what you said. It makes no sense. Cochran knew that the murders had not been committed when Mandel and Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo. That's what he told the criminal trial jury in his closing statement.

January 30, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: BY THIS TIME, ACCORDING TO WHAT I EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, ELLEN
AARONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE CONTINUED WALKING SOUTH ON BUNDY, AND NOW THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BUNDY.
NOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS THAT THEY WALKED THERE, THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE, RIGHT TO THEIR RIGHT, IF THE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED, WOULD BE THESE BODIES WITH THE GATE OPEN WITH BLOOD FLOWING DOWN.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN I READ THIS MORNING FROM PHILLIPS' TRANSCRIPT, WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO THE CORONER ABOUT THE NEED TO COME OUT HERE, THESE BODIES ARE RIGHT THERE, THEY CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SIDEWALK OR FROM THE STREET. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE IN A RATHER UNIQUE POSITION.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY, THEY SAW NO BODIES, THAT SAW NO GATE OPENED AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:25 WHEN THEY'RE WALKING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO THAT BECOMES -- THEY BECOME, AS WITH ALL WITNESSES, VERY IMPORTANT. THEY BECOME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN THE PROSECUTION TRIES TO PRESENT A THEORY THAT THESE KILLINGS HAVE OCCURRED AT 10:15.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The facts in this case is that the DA's nailed themselves down to a timeline that they never veered from until Chris Darden's closing arguments.

The fact is if you base the timeline on the dog's barking then wailing, his refusual to lead the first man back to his home, then the fact is, OJ Simpson is innocent.

The fact is that it was a very exciting night for Sydney, the fact is that Sydney had a friend that was suppose to spend the night, the fact is that OJ Simpson knew this.

The fact is that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting, the fact is that Nicole got at least four phone calls in a rather narrow time frame, the fact is, OJ Simpson did not make her cry nor did they have a fight on the phone that night.

The fact is that asking Sydney what time she went to bed and what time did she hear her mother's tears is the most logical time to start the timeline.

The fact is that the DA's could have narrowed the timeline and they did, only one problem, there was no way one man could have done this by himself, so they went with witnesses that helped them spin their tale.

The defense and the DA's both had witnesses who gave it their best to remember, however, they were really a wash. The timeline is really not a "fact", it is a question, could one man could have done this, done that, done this again, done that again, and be ready to go to catch his flight.

The civil trial lawyers I believe just adjusted their timeline when the defense tried to use the couple on the blind date. Petrocelli took a page out of defense attorney's playbook--make a defense witness their own. In the Goldmans' book, they talked about how the DA's turned Robert H's testimony into trash. Said that Petrocelli also made a fool out of him---but it seems like they forgot to tell Petrocelli how they felt.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

The facts in this case is that the DA's nailed themselves down to a timeline that they never veered from until Chris Darden's closing arguments.

The fact is if you base the timeline on the dog's barking then wailing, his refusual to lead the first man back to his home, then the fact is, OJ Simpson is innocent.

The fact is that it was a very exciting night for Sydney, the fact is that Sydney had a friend that was suppose to spend the night, the fact is that OJ Simpson knew this.

The fact is that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting, the fact is that Nicole got at least four phone calls in a rather narrow time frame, the fact is, OJ Simpson did not make her cry nor did they have a fight on the phone that night.

The fact is that asking Sydney what time she went to bed and what time did she hear her mother's tears is the most logical time to start the timeline.

The fact is that the DA's could have narrowed the timeline and they did, only one problem, there was no way one man could have done this by himself, so they went with witnesses that helped them spin their tale.

The defense and the DA's both had witnesses who gave it their best to remember, however, they were really a wash. The timeline is really not a "fact", it is a question, could one man could have done this, done that, done this again, done that again, and be ready to go to catch his flight.

The civil trial lawyers I believe just adjusted their timeline when the defense tried to use the couple on the blind date. Petrocelli took a page out of defense attorney's playbook--make a defense witness their own. In the Goldmans' book, they talked about how the DA's turned Robert H's testimony into trash. Said that Petrocelli also made a fool out of him---but it seems like they forgot to tell Petrocelli how they felt.

limakey,

The prosecution made the mistake of relying on estimated times from selected witnesses. Estimated times are not real times. They only tell us approximately when an event happened. The order that events happened in tell us what Simpson did that night, not different estimated times from different witnesses. The only real times we know are times that are supported by telephone records.

The fact that Nicole's Akita didn't try to lead Schwab back to Nicole's condo is meaningless. Schwab was walking his dog when he encountered the Akita. Nicole's Akita followed him and his dog, not the other way around. It wasn't until about an hour later when Boztep and Rasmussen took the Akita for a walk and it led them back to Nicole's condo.

Your ridiculous statement that because the Akita didn't lead Schwab back the condo means Simpson is innocent I'm sorry to say is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard anyone say about this. Congratulations limakey, your comment ranks right up there with another of my favorites, jotun's belief why Simpson couldn't have committed these murders.

o.j.nut 4/08/06
"Yes, I do believe a man who can't stand the sight of blood COULD NOT slauter 2 people.
Or a man who COULD NOT even put a worm on his fishing hook [Syndey did it for him]
COULD NOT butcher the mother of his children.Especially a total Mama's Boy like O.J..I
don't think kind-hearted O.J. could kill anyone.Yes, I believe a man afraid of the dark
does NOT go into any dark place.And here's one even the o.j.nut didn't know until a few
years ago.O.J.has a very sensitive stomach.That Big-Mac would have been in that blood."

Simpson said he called Nicole about 9:00 that night and spoke with Sydney. Simpson knew what time his kids went to bed and that there was no friend sleeping over that night. The fact is that no one knows what Simpson talked to Nicole about when he called her. We only have Simpson's version of what was said and he lied about everything he didn't want us to know.

The fact is that one person could have done everything that we know Simpson did that night in the time he had available to do it. Simpson was unaccounted for from when he and Kaelin returned from McDonalds at about 9:40 to when Allan Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his front door at about 10:55. Allan Park had arrived at Rockingham about 10:20 and Simpson's Bronco wasn't there. Nicole's condo was less than a five minute drive away from Rockingham and three different witnesses tells us what Simpson did before Park saw Simpson.

The civil trial attorneys didn't adjust their time line they corrected the prosecutors incorrect time line. The civil trial attorneys didn't use estimated times they used only the known times based on telephone records. The prosecutors never turned Heidstra's testimony into trash. They never disputed one single fact Heidstra testified to. Petrocelli never made a fool out of Heidstra. Heidstra was Petrocelli's key witness who established the time of the murders. I don't care what you think you read in the Goldman's book, Heidstra's testimony is on the record in the transcripts. Nothing you have said about this is true. If you ever decide to start educating yourself and actually read his testimony yourself than you would know how wrong you really are.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

January 30, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: BY THIS TIME, ACCORDING TO WHAT I EXPECT THE TESTIMONY TO BE, ELLEN
AARONSON AND DAN MANDEL HAVE CONTINUED WALKING SOUTH ON BUNDY, AND NOW THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BUNDY.

bobaugust

August,

The only thing Cochran is proving is, Clark is wrong, he is not arguing the times for the murders, he is challenging the States Timeline, nothing more.. The murders, as you like to say, took place between 9:47pm and 12am...

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


August,

The only thing Cochran is proving is, Clark is wrong, he is not arguing the times for the murders, he is challenging the States Timeline, nothing more.. The murders, as you like to say, took place between 9:47pm and 12am...

nettathirty, there you go again taking selected portions of testimony out of context and ignoring the parts that contradict your false beliefs.

January 30, 1995

NOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, IS THAT THEY WALKED THERE, THIS VERY SHORT DISTANCE, RIGHT TO THEIR RIGHT, IF THE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED, WOULD BE THESE BODIES WITH THE GATE OPEN WITH BLOOD FLOWING DOWN.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

The only real times we know are times that are supported by telephone records.


bobaugust

9:47p - Last call from NBS phone number
10:03p - Last call, that we know of from OJ's cell
10:52p - Limo driver to Dale St John (sp)


-

"you can't trust the police and the evidence was contaminated. Which is it? You can't have it both ways"

Why can't you have it both ways? yes, these are two different things but not exclusive of each other..

It appears that you are saying that if you can't trust the police all evidence must be considered to be uncontaminated. What is that?

You are likewise saying that if evidence is contaminated then the police must be trustworthy.

There can exist more than one defense to any sort of legal charge.

Just a couple of things:

No one who was not in court can know what the jury received as testimony. even if one reads transcripts, you cannot get the understanding of the credibility of the witnesses - that is to say what the jurors believe or don't believe.

Bear in mind the burden of proof in a civil trial - 49.9999999% didn't do it, 50.0000001% could have done it - will result in a verdict against defendant.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Frankincensed
Just a couple of things:

No one who was not in court can know what the jury received as testimony. even if one reads transcripts, you cannot get the understanding of the credibility of the witnesses - that is to say what the jurors believe or don't believe.

Bear in mind the burden of proof in a civil trial - 49.9999999% didn't do it, 50.0000001% could have done it - will result in a verdict against defendant.

Of course we know what the jury received as testimony. Or at least the posters who bothered to read the transcripts and use a little common sense. What we do know is that the ignorant and biased jury did not even consider the undisputed evidence, could not comprehend the scientific evidence and gave Orenthal a free pass on his abuse of Nicole. What they did do was return a verdict contrived from their perceptions of LE and not the murder of two people. What a sham that trial was.

[dandmb50]

It's very sad what the Goldmans are going through and always will.
My heart goes out to them.

But what they are doing is not right.

What's next, if he has another child he must sign over rights to them? It's stupid and it will never happen.

He was found not guilty, whatever. Thats how the system works.
How many people have been found guilty that are not.

It's so, so sad what is happening on the Nancy Grace show tonight. Nancy is true to form but it's sad.

I'm not a lawyer but what Mr Goldman said about him seems to be actionable to me. Oh yea I guess not because he won't mention his name.

Enough said....

Daniel.....Toronto

[weezer]

*Snip*

Originally posted by dandmb50
But what they are doing is not right.

He was found not guilty, whatever. Thats how the system works.
How many people have been found guilty that are not.

He was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman in a civil trial and a judgement was issued against him. He owes money to Fred Goldman and he needs to pay it. If that means he signs over his 'personality' then so be it.

I doubt you or I could get out of paying a judgement simply because we disagreed with it.

[weezer]

I always thought it was the height of selfishness for Orenthal to uproot those two kids from everything they'd known their whole lives -- move them away from family, friends, neighborhoods, and schools so soon after the death of their mother.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

The fact is that it was a very exciting night for Sydney, the fact is that Sydney had a friend that was suppose to spend the night, the fact is that OJ Simpson knew this.

The fact is that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting, the fact is that Nicole got at least four phone calls in a rather narrow time frame, the fact is, OJ Simpson did not make her cry nor did they have a fight on the phone that night.

The fact is that asking Sydney what time she went to bed and what time did she hear her mother's tears is the most logical time to start the timeline.

*snip*

Hi LImakey,

You put too much trust in a book that we don't know is truthful or not.

Simpson SAYS that he knew this girl was spending the night. However, we don't know if he KNEW this girl went home or not.

There is no FACT that OJ Simpson did not make her cry or didn't have a fight with her on the phone that night. You are taking OJ's word for this. There is no way to track the local calls made that night. What if she was crying about being scared of OJ? What if she was terrified because he had just threatened her?

What if they did ask Sydney what time she went to bed and she didn't know? What if they did ask them questions that you will never find out about?

You place way too much on Sydney's comments. Especially since nothing has ever been released except for hear say. The time line should have went backwards from when the bodies were found.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I always thought it was the height of selfishness for Orenthal to uproot those two kids from everything they'd known their whole lives -- move them away from family, friends, neighborhoods, and schools so soon after the death of their mother.

I completely agree! OJ is so, so stupid, but he's no fool and he needed to get out of Dodge quick! He needed a new home, but didn't want it taken from him to partially satisfy the civil judgment that was rendered against him in the civil trial. OJ didn't want those two things constantly hanging over his head everyday while he was out playing golf and living the good life in Florida!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I completely agree! OJ is so, so stupid, but he's no fool and he needed to get out of Dodge quick! He needed a new home, but didn't want it taken from him to partially satisfy the civil judgment that was rendered against him in the civil trial. OJ didn't want those two things constantly hanging over his head everyday while he was out playing golf and living the good life in Florida!

JMO and MOO!!

I just thought he showed his true self. Nicole wrote and family and friends said that Orenthal was an absentee dad. I just feel he showed his narcissistic self when he jerked the kids out of familiar surroundings after their mother's death. No telling what kind of impact it has had on them. Not having the support system they would have had if they'd stayed around family, friends and all things familiar.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I just thought he showed his true self. Nicole wrote and family and friends said that Orenthal was an absentee dad. I just feel he showed his narcissistic self when he jerked the kids out of familiar surroundings after their mother's death. No telling what kind of impact it has had on them. Not having the support system they would have had if they'd stayed around family, friends and all things familiar.

I completely agree with you! If he really, really cared about his kids in the first place, what would ever possess him to slaughter/murder their Mother?