What if he was framed!

[WarmNCozy]

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

Welcome aboard.

I took a quick look at the link you provided and waited for you to post. One section of the link causes me to wonder not only about the planting but something else that I have pondered for quite sometime.

[WarmNCozy]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I did not mean to convey that I was minimizing the efforts taken by Mr. Wagner. What I was saying is that one section of the link was of particular interest to me and I will read all the link. I read the section that was of particular interest and, it fits into something that I have considered possible.
I recently saw again the movie, JFK. I think the line from that movie was "its a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma." I am not a fan of massive conspiracies, although I realize that conspiracies exist. Like you, I am not sure who the murderer is. I am sure of one thing, which is some of the things just do not add up, imho.

Need to read Double Crossed! It's out of print but available on Amazon.com as a used book. Read it after you read Wagner's website! And then comment!

[martin II]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

Warmncozy

I read Wagner over a year ago and have readit many times since. I refer to it all the time for facts.

It is the most detail investigation.
I find the motive for nicoles killing by the mob to be quite believable and within their capabilities to carry out without a trace to them.

The setup is exactly how i believe they would have done it based on other killings i have read about that was mob involved.

I think that for those that have ignored his investigation because of their preconceived notion of oj guilt have missed some important issues in this case.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Welcome aboard.

I took a quick look at the link you provided and waited for you to post. One section of the link causes me to wonder not only about the planting but something else that I have pondered for quite sometime.

what is that?
you can pm it to me if you like
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

Originally Posted by martin II

Warmncozy

I read Wagner over a year ago and have readit many times since. I refer to it all the time for facts.

It is the most detail investigation.
I find the motive for nicoles killing by the mob to be quite believable and within their capabilities to carry out without a trace to them.

The setup is exactly how i believe they would have done it based on other killings i have read about that was mob involved.

I think that for those that have ignored his investigation because of their preconceived notion of oj guilt have missed some important issues in this case.imo
martin II

I think they need to read this website and then try to figure out what is right or wrong!

I'm still confused, but confused on the side of maybe he was framed and is totally innocent of murder!

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

I think they need to read this website and then try to figure out what is right or wrong!

I'm still confused, but confused on the side of maybe he was framed and is totally innocent of murder!

There is scientic information that came out in August, 1997 that shows that the blood on the m (magical) socks and the gate may have been planted.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

There is scientic information that came out in August, 1997 that shows that the blood on the m (magical) socks and the gate may have been planted.

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

william

Please continue to post information that seeks to speak to the truth.

martin II

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

william

Please continue to post information that seeks to speak to the truth.

martin II

Martin,

I have found that truth like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. When what one believes is shown to be the truth through science, math and common sense, others dimiss it saying it is wrong. They would rather rely on human error, mistakes and confusion to ignore the obvious, imho. A scientist should know that, if his machine is giving results of EDTA in substances where none should be, he should either clean the machine or use another one and rerung the test, imho. He should not come to a court of law and say I do not know what I found but, if I did find it, it came from a ghost in the machine, and expect others to convict on this testimony. I believe the criminal jurors were much too sophisticated to accept this testimony. However, some seem to have accepted it and point to the testimony of another scientist to say, yes, if he did find it even though he should not have, the ghost did it.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Martin,

I have found that truth like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. When what one believes is shown to be the truth through science, math and common sense, others dimiss it saying it is wrong. They would rather rely on human error, mistakes and confusion to ignore the obvious, imho. A scientist should know that, if his machine is giving results of EDTA in substances where none should be, he should either clean the machine or use another one and rerung the test, imho. He should not come to a court of law and say I do not know what I found but, if I did find it, it came from a ghost in the machine, and expect others to convict on this testimony. I believe the criminal jurors were much too sophisticated to accept this testimony. However, some seem to have accepted it and point to the testimony of another scientist to say, yes, if he did find it even though he should not have, the ghost did it.

william
I am in complete agreement with your post. If i had been one to believe oj guilty, after listening to Martz testimony i would have been forced to say
'SOMETHING WRONG HERE"
IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

it wasn't an accusation. . .

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

william
I am in complete agreement with your post. If i had been one to believe oj guilty, after listening to Martz testimony i would have been forced to say
'SOMETHING WRONG HERE"
IMO
MARTIN ii

does this mean you believed him innocent?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

it wasn't an accusation. . .

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

If there had been undisputed proof, as you posted, then there would not have been research done to answer the question of planting in September, 1997.

I thank you Martin for attempting to have others stick to the posting rules. I think that others may make accusations to try to hide the lack of honesty in their own posts.

[packy]

If I remember right, Fung collected the socks and didn't make any note of any blood on the sock, and then a laboratory supervisor and two others noted no blood. Then the blood stain was suddenly discovered. Sure seems like it had been planted or it would have been seen by experts before it was.

I have seen the Wagner site before, and thanks for bringing it up again. He mentions Wasz, and I haven't been keeping up for awhile but was Wasz the person who had a website and was ordered to remove much of his material? Or who am I thinking of?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

does this mean you believed him innocent?

weezer

Since for many not guilty does not equate with innocence i have no idea as to why you ask such a question.

martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

weezer

Since for many not guilty does not equate with innocence i have no idea as to why you ask such a question.

martin II

I was referring to your statement, ". . .If i had been one to believe oj guilty. . " Seems to me that the converse would be that you believed orenthal was innocent. This isn't a trick question. imo

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

I was referring to your statement, ". . .If i had been one to believe oj guilty. . " Seems to me that the converse would be that you believed orenthal was innocent. This isn't a trick question. imo

i think you already know that the court system does not equate innocence with not guilty. Many here have made that distinction on this issue.

Try not to read my post and then try to ask me a question that is not included in my post. If i wanted to state that i believe oj to be innocent i would have had no problem doing so. i don't need you to try to say it for me in the form of a quesiton.

Stop twisting my words.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by packy

If I remember right, Fung collected the socks and didn't make any note of any blood on the sock, and then a laboratory supervisor and two others noted no blood. Then the blood stain was suddenly discovered. Sure seems like it had been planted or it would have been seen by experts before it was.

I have seen the Wagner site before, and thanks for bringing it up again. He mentions Wasz, and I haven't been keeping up for awhile but was Wasz the person who had a website and was ordered to remove much of his material? Or who am I thinking of?

Packy
here is part of what you mentioned.

Now, 9 days after meeting her, and 11 days after she met with Kardashian I get a demand to take down from my web site material that is critical (if you believe Wasz) of Kardashian. After it has been there for 3-1/2 years without any complaint. If you think this is only a coincidence, I've got some fine Florida lakefront property for sale.

Anyway, if you think you may ever want to see what Wasz actually said, you had better go get these articles quick: http://wagnerandson.com . It is in "The Bresnahan Series" under the section BILL WASZ near the bottom of the table of contents. The presentation there includes graphic facsimiles of six actual pages from the Wasz diary.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/CONTROL.htm
--dick wagner

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

i think you already know that the court system does not equate innocence with not guilty. Many here have made that distinction on this issue.

Try not to read my post and then try to ask me a question that is not included in my post. If i wanted to state that i believe oj to be innocent i would have had no problem doing so. i don't need you to try to say it for me in the form of a quesiton.

Stop twisting my words.
imo
martin II

I don't know why you are stating the "court system does not equate innocence with not guilty". That wasn't an issue in the posts being discussed.


I don't see any "twisting" from fbg, she was just asking you to clarify your post & was simply asking you if you thought Simpson was innocent. It's a yes or no answer & if you don't want to answer, why not just say so?

[packy]

Originally Posted by martin II

Packy
here is part of what you mentioned.

Now, 9 days after meeting her, and 11 days after she met with Kardashian I get a demand to take down from my web site material that is critical (if you believe Wasz) of Kardashian. After it has been there for 3-1/2 years without any complaint. If you think this is only a coincidence, I've got some fine Florida lakefront property for sale.

Anyway, if you think you may ever want to see what Wasz actually said, you had better go get these articles quick: http://wagnerandson.com . It is in "The Bresnahan Series" under the section BILL WASZ near the bottom of the table of contents. The presentation there includes graphic facsimiles of six actual pages from the Wasz diary.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/CONTROL.htm
--dick wagner

Yes that's it and thank you, Martin. It would be very hard to believe that was just a coincidence.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

Well I know I watched the entire trial and I sure was convinced that planting could have occurred. One thing I know for sure is that the OJ's defense team attacked every single piece of evidence and created doubt. IIRC photos of the gate were shown from one day and showed no blood but 2-3 days later photos taken showed blood where there was none previously. It's been a long time and I haven't really participated in these message board conversations - so this is strictly from memory and it's been a long time.

This is some of the articles that were actually written during the trial:

Bloody socks:

Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.

Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.

Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm

Archives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns0.htm

Jurors' comments:

Jurors say acquittals were based on lack of evidence

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

[Athena]

I also believe that some people are not aware of the fact that some evidence that we saw and knew about the jurors never saw and were not aware of until the trial was over. I also want to apologize in advance because you all have probably discussed all of this stuff but not having participated I am not sure -- so just tell me to go away. I suppose recent events have gotten me interested again.

e.g.
All the 'evidence' the jury will not take into deliberations

Remember the testimony of Rosa Lopez? The O.J. Simpson jury surely won't.

The woman billed in Johnnie Cochran Jr.'s opening statement as the 'Maid With the Alibi' came to court in February 1995, testified under protest, hopped on a plane to El Salvador and hasn't been heard from since.

Her testimony, preserved on videotape, was never shown to the jury. Lopez joins legions of people, things and events that became part of American pop culture but will never be considered by panelists who will soon deliberate Simpson's fate on murder charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns31.htm

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by Athena

I also believe that some people are not aware of the fact that some evidence that we saw and knew about the jurors never saw and were not aware of until the trial was over. I also want to apologize in advance because you all have probably discussed all of this stuff but not having participated I am not sure -- so just tell me to go away. I suppose recent events have gotten me interested again.

e.g.
All the 'evidence' the jury will not take into deliberations

Remember the testimony of Rosa Lopez? The O.J. Simpson jury surely won't.

The woman billed in Johnnie Cochran Jr.'s opening statement as the 'Maid With the Alibi' came to court in February 1995, testified under protest, hopped on a plane to El Salvador and hasn't been heard from since.

Her testimony, preserved on videotape, was never shown to the jury. Lopez joins legions of people, things and events that became part of American pop culture but will never be considered by panelists who will soon deliberate Simpson's fate on murder charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns31.htm

Athena, the reason the jury never heard Rosa Lopez's testimony is that Simpson's defense didn't want her to hear it. Cochran had claimed in his opening statement that Lopez came outside to walk her dog at 10:15 that night and she saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham. But when Lopez testified she didn't say that. She testified she took the dog out at 10:00 not 10:15 for a very short time,. Allan Park the limousine driver testified that when he arrived at Rockingham at about 10:25 the Bronco was not parked there.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

Athena, the reason the jury never heard Rosa Lopez's testimony is that Simpson's defense didn't want her to hear it. Cochran had claimed in his opening statement that Lopez came outside to walk her dog at 10:15 that night and she saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham. But when Lopez testified she didn't say that. She testified she took the dog out at 10:00 not 10:15 for a very short time,. Allan Park the limousine driver testified that when he arrived at Rockingham at about 10:25 the Bronco was not parked there.

bobaugust

bob
what differance does 10:00 and 10:15 make.
A Park did not see the Bronco even when everyone knows it was there. so i don't believe he is reliable as he said he was not looking for a car when he arrived. he was looking for a address on the curb
martin II

[martin II]

WarmnCozy

I took your advice and read WAGNER again.
I found his Scenario very believable and possible.
There are many instances of mob killings about business in America.


The Bundy Murder Scenario



The following scenario is an account of the crime as the author has deduced it from courtroom evidence and testimony, information in books on the subject, input from contributors to AFOJS, private correspondence and interviews, and independent investigations, reconstructions, and experiments. (See the author's site, http://www.wagnerandson.com for details.) Those sources collectively indicate that several individuals played specific roles in the crime. Even though they can not be identified yet, the killers have been given fictitious names in the scenario for convenience in following them through the events. The motive for the crime and the involvement of named individuals (e.g., Kardashian, Barbieri, Resnick, etc.) is speculative, but the conduct of the crime and the sequence of associated events conforms to the evidence and other factual information.

WHY: Simpson's long-time friend, Robert Kardashian had made his fortune in the recorded music business and had met many and varied people during that career; among them some with connections to the underworld. One such person (professional gambling branch) approached Kardashian for an introduction to Simpson in the summer of 1993. This contact represented an immense and very modern professional sports betting ring with (800) phone numbers, off-shore banking, internet web sites, and every modern resource. It was their aim to build a clientele among very wealthy "high rollers." Through his affiliation with Hertz, Simpson routinely met such men -- corporate officers, other celebrities like himself, influential people in government,... So, a deal was concluded. When Simpson was playing golf with such men he would pass along an (800) phone number that would connect with a world-class virtual sports betting parlor. In exchange for new clients that he brought, Simpson would get a "finder's fee." It was like free money to Simpson ("off the books," and untaxed), and he considered that the arrangement was a real windfall for him, and it gave him a thrill to deal with actual underworld figures.

But, in the latter part of 1993 Simpson was in a state of reconciliation with his ex-wife, Nicole, and she got wind of his favors for the mob. She went ballistic. She recalled the furor over Pete Rose's betting with professional gamblers, and his downfall as a result. Rose had only been a customer of the mob, and Simpson's connection would undoubtedly bring worse public ostracism, if it was ever found out. Nicole saw the prospect that her gravy train was about to become derailed, and she prevailed on OJ to withdraw from his mob connection and denounce it to those he had already steered. The mob was VERY angry with this development and threatened Simpson. He demurred that it was not his fault, Nicole made him do it. That was not a good enough answer, but it did raise the specter that she could expose the operation, since she herself was not at risk. The mob threatened Nicole, but she was adamant. A deal was struck: Nicole, OJ, and Kardashian would keep quiet about OJ's previous affiliation with the mob, and the mob would let bygones be bygones. However, in the tense and frightening weeks leading up to this stand-off Nicole did confide about OJ's mob involvement, and the mob's threats on her own life, to one person -- her closest confidant at the time -- Cora Fischman.

DECEPTION: As sometimes happens in dealings with the mob, those people were less than forthright, and they let it be known to Kardashian that the understanding with the Simpsons was only a stop-gap. The mob had suffered loss of face with those that Simpson had denounced the mob to, and rumors were spreading through the sports betting community that the mob had knuckled under to Nicole and OJ. That was intolerable, and it was necessary to make an example of somebody to restore a sense of discipline among those the mob dealt with. The mob would be satisfied, they said, if Nicole were murdered, and they encouraged Kardashian to arrange such a thing himself. In this way, the ill-fated Wasz plot to murder Nicole came into being in January, 1994. But, by the end Nicole was still alive, Wasz was in jail, and there was a trail of circumstantial evidence (and Wasz' own story) to implicate Kardashian, OJ and Barbieri in a plot to murder Nicole. (It is possible that this result -- Nicole not actually being murdered in January -- was just what the mob wanted. It left in its wake circumstances with which Simpson could be intimidated later, when the actual murder occurred, and be kept quiet about the mob's involvement.) At that point, the mob told Kardashian they would take matters into their own hands. (See, "Handing Off the Problem," on our site, http://www.wagnerandson.com.)

www.wagnerandson.com

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by martin II

bob
what differance does 10:00 and 10:15 make.
A Park did not see the Bronco even when everyone knows it was there. so i don't believe he is reliable as he said he was not looking for a car when he arrived. he was looking for a address on the curb
martin II

martin II, what difference does 10:00 and 10:15 make? Just more misinformation Cochran told the jury and additional time Simpson was able to leave Rockingham go to Bundy. The reality is that if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park arrived at Rockingham he would have seen it. The reality is if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park returned to the Rockingham gate some fifteen minutes later to look up the Rockingham driveway he would have seen it.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

*Snipped* ". . .IThere are many instances of mob killings about business in America."

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

you got me on that one. Have no idea as to what you are trying to say.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

you got me on that one. Have no idea as to what you are trying to say.
martin II

what did you think about one of his posse having the name of "Charlie"? dang -- you can't find this stuff written for daytime tv. LOL

[martin II]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

martin II, what difference does 10:00 and 10:15 make? Just more misinformation Cochran told the jury and additional time Simpson was able to leave Rockingham go to Bundy. The reality is that if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park arrived at Rockingham he would have seen it. The reality is if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park returned to the Rockingham gate some fifteen minutes later to look up the Rockingham driveway he would have seen it.

bobaugust

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

It looks like you only believe Parks testimony when it's something that you like or agree with.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

how many feet from the bronco back bumper?

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

He wasn't looking for an elephant either but he would have seen it if it were sitting next to the house numbers he was looking for.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

He wasn't looking for an elephant either but he would have seen it if it were sitting next to the house numbers he was looking for.

tv
ok

his answer was he did not see the bronco because he was not looking for it and was looking for the house numbers.

when he left the rockingham driveway he was about 3 feet from the WHITE bronco parked on his right at the curb by the house numbers. He testified that the bronco was not there THEN even when the prosecution said it was.

It is like when he was parked at the Ashford gate, he said he saw TWO cars
parked inside the property in the driveway even thought M Clarke and the defense challanged him on the two cars he said he saw, he still said he saw two cars.there was only one car.the bently
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

how many feet from the bronco back bumper?

Fron the crime scene picture i have it looks like the back bumper of the bronco is about 1 1 1/2 feet from the address numbers on the curb.
I think you also have or have seen this picture.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

weezer
what i think is that people that try to disrupt regular mob business can find themselves in big trouble which is Wagners theory about why the mob decided to have nicole killed. If she had caused oj to try to back ouf of the gambling business i would think this would not have been looked at kindly by them.

martin II

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by martin II

weezer
what i think is that people that try to disrupt regular mob business can find themselves in big trouble which is Wagners theory about why the mob decided to have nicole killed. If she had caused oj to try to back ouf of the gambling business i would think this would not have been looked at kindly by them.

martin II

so the blame is now off Faye Resnick?