General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't think 2L8 used any "statistics" to form an opinion about a poster. I think she is basing her opinions on the posts of said poster.

Thank you to someone who uses her common sense!

:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

2l8 4a

Fortunately for me , there are many people in this company that are very please to do work. this affords me the option of doing as much as i want to do or nothing at all.

i do have a lovely lady.

:rolleyes: Uh, what happened to the wife? No, don't answer that please!

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

rayray,

You have to remember that Nicole was 17 when they met. Yes, you're right she should have realized that once a cheat always a cheat. There are so many people in this world who don't realize that. Especially the younger they are. She wasn't even an adult when they met. Everyone thinks differently about life when they're 17 versus when they are 27. She grew up with OJ. She knew no other life.

Nicole WAS dependent on OJ. He took care of her. Once she realized that he wasn't going to change (the man always says I won't do it again...blah blah blah) I think she realized she needed to leave. But, by this time she had no other life or career. He could manipulate her easier because she had no means to take care of herself.

Women stay in abused relationships because they feel they have no way out. Because they have the man in their face telling them that they will kill them, they can't make it on their own, no one would have them or they couldn't do it anyway.

Have you read ALL the depositions in the civil trial? You really should. There is way more evidence of abuse than you are taking into consideration. OJ DEFINATELY was a batterer.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Dr Lenora Walker, who founded " Battered Women Symdrome" seems to think Nicole wasn't!

Netta,

Actually, that is untrue. Lenore Walker's handwritten notes from when she interviewed OJ in the criminal trial were entered into evidence in the civil trial. Her notes stated that she found Nicole to be a battered spouse.

Please research before posting anything further on this topic, unless you simply care not to be educated.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was NO of DV in their marriage, period!! How hard is this for you to understand, NO EVIDENCE of DV exist!!

The facts unfortuantely show otherwise Netta.

People who testified to witnessing and knowing of abuse in the Simpson marriage:

India Allen
Albert Aguilera
Wayne Hughes
Alfred Acosta

Lenore Walker's notes entered into evidence stated that OJ was indeed a batterer and Nicole was a battered spouse.

Nicole was clearly beaten in 1989, and since OJ testified that he "felt responsible" for all of her injuries even though he lied and said he never hit her, we know that he is indeed the one who beat her that night.

Domestic violence is a very serious issue. Close to four million women are battered each year, and people ignore it. I'm sorry if you don't believe the worst about OJ Simpson, but the facts lay it out there on the line.

Regardless of it he killed her, he did beat her. That should be undisputed.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

i never streatched out the "she was living on his dime " to mean all you have added to it. that was a streatch imo.

however, IF OJ WAS still paying the bills for her, it seems that a little common sense would have been in order for nicole especially if she knew he had a explosive personality. if that is true.
if she was of the opinion of the hell with him, i can do what i want
to do in his face and he has to take it. i don;t think that was a wise decision on her part.

why take the cash and rub it in ojs face. why not be a little discreat about her activities. many people that break up decide that it is best to wait for the final divoice to before spreading their wings, so to speak in public. this may have been a better course for nicole to take than the one it apperas she did take.
imo

Her divorce was finalized in 1992. All of the actions you have spoken of began taking place after that.

Nicole was awarded money in their divorce, that is what happens when people seperate who are in a sitaution where one party is the breadwinner. Are you telling me that you believe that Nicole should have still had to negotiate her life with the man she divorced?

Where do you see that she took the cash and rubbed it in his face? Please provide an example for me to understand what you mean.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The Black Community, what is that? Didn't you recognize it? That was the pictures of people cheering and happy that were shown on TV when OJ was acquitted --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Trial 102, if she could have damaged OJ the prosecution would have put her on. The prosecution didn't need to call the defense paid and biased witness -- they had their own much more recognized and experienced expert. Actually, they had more than one -- all who testified that Nicole was indeed battered by OJ.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Doing a little spinning are we:

Dr Walker, actually said this:

It was her opinion that although Simpson had battered Nicole at one time, he did not fit the pattern of a batterer who goes on to kill his victim.. The defense doctor was using the 'one time' event because that's all OJ would own up to.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you can take my comment any way you like. since you asked, yes she does and she admits it. it is not said nor does she takle it in a hateful way as you seem to have concluded.

:seeya: The defense jury expert when profiling prospective jurors for the criminal trial, told the Dream Team that black women were sympathetic to OJ (felt protective of him) and said in their questionnaires that some physical violence in a family is okay. Remember the picture of the battered women's shelter showing the residents cheering his acquittal? Man oh man.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i am trying to avoid a argumment with you. so i will make my response to you short and you can translate it as you please.

some peole that get divoiced remain angry with each other for some time and feel the need to SHOW him or her who the winner was . so to speak.

others evaluate the situation more closely and decide to use descrition in their activities so as to avoid further conflict with the other party.

those that use the second example loose nothing . no conflict is always better than conflict.

ray

This is a classic response from you when you have no good answer.

I asked you specifically for an example of how she rubbed the cash in his face and you cannot provide me with one. Instead you come up with this response and tell me to translate it how I wish.

So I translate it as you have no idea how she rubbed cash in his face.

Thank you, you've told me all I needed to know.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped * Originally posted by nettathirty
IMO - DV wasn't their problem! Then for goodness sakes tell us what their was.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
The defense doctor was using the 'one time' event because that's all OJ would own up to.

Lenore Walker did not mean only one event when she referred to OJ as being a batterer at one time. She meant that at one time in his life. For example, at one point in someone's life could be their entire teenage years.


fbgweezer, I know you already know this, I just quoted your post because it was the shortest for me to be able to quote and respond to.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Trial 102, if she could have damaged OJ the prosecution would have put her on.

Lenore Walker could damage Simpson, and the prosecution in the civil trial did take her deposition and did use here handwritten notes in the trial.

Lenore Walker's notes did damage Simpson very much in the civil trial.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Blaming the jury is getting old too, that would be like saying Alien thinks OJ is guilty because she was a victim of DV.. The jury is who set the murderer free so of course they are to blame. They were an uneducated, biased group that accepted domestic violence as a way of life in a relationship and could not grasp the forensic evidence. IMO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


alien
you have supported one of my previous post, that all women/men
should develope themselves professionally work wise so as to be financially independant of another. i made this comment in relations to nicole allowing herself to be completely dependant on oj financially. not a good idea.

my other point is that when a couple has a fight or argument the man is accused as the abuser. i have said that i don't hit and if i ever see a minor argument escalating into what may be out of controll behavior by either party, i remove myself from the enviroment.

some women that stay in abusive relationships do so because there is some kind of trade off with the abuser. i pay the bills and you allow me to control you or you have a good life style so you allow me to controll you. if oj was abusing nicole on a regular basis i think it was her personally responsibility to leave. she had her family and her friends for support.

if oj was having all these outside affairs and she knew it for a fact, then she had a responsibility to move on in the beginning.

what i don;t agree with is the notion that a abused person becomes helpless in doing anything about it. in nicoles situaiton i think she enjoyed the life style she and oj had and she was willing to accept this behavior by oj to continue to enjoy this life style.

now some women may be predisposed to be abused. maby because they are not secure in themselves and maby because they make the wrong choice in evaluating the person that they decide to be with. (looking at the "things" they get from the relationship and not the person)

some people have more explosive personalities than others.
i think tazzy said maby nicole had become jealous of these extra women.

when nicole met oj he was married. yet she allowed him to set her up in a apartment near his home so that she could be the other woman and she was willing to hold this position until oj got his divoice from his wife.

now she should have known that if he set me up as the other woman , this guy would more than likely have other women if i hooked up with him. but i looks like she overlooked this issue for the lifestyle she saw in front of her. whose fault was that?

when people make the wrong decisions about their mate, who is responsible?
again i see no reason that any person should hit another, I don't know any other way to say this except to say -- you are an idiot. No wonder you talk about your wife the way you do --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

i never streatched out the "she was living on his dime " to mean all you have added to it. that was a streatch imo.

however, IF OJ WAS still paying the bills for her, it seems that a little common sense would have been in order for nicole especially if she knew he had a explosive personality. if that is true.
if she was of the opinion of the hell with him, i can do what i want
to do in his face and he has to take it. i don;t think that was a wise decision on her part.

why take the cash and rub it in ojs face. why not be a little discreat about her activities. many people that break up decide that it is best to wait for the final divoice to before spreading their wings, so to speak in public. this may have been a better course for nicole to take than the one it apperas she did take.
imo Do you and rayray never tire of trashing and blaming Nicole? Anything she did or did not do does not excuse OJ butchering her. Quit defending the murderer.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
i am not saying that oj did not hit her. i don't know how often
or who caused these fights.

i had personal experience with with a family member, female, that when she was 16-18 she had two guys that hit her. it was not until we had been able to ger her to understand that it was she that had made the wrong choices of a boyfriend

i don't know where MR Brown was when his 17 year old daughter was living in a married mans apartment playing the role of the other woman. Ignorant post.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Lenore Walker did not mean only one event when she referred to OJ as being a batterer at one time. She meant that at one time in his life. For example, at one point in someone's life could be their entire teenage years.


fbgweezer, I know you already know this, I just quoted your post because it was the shortest for me to be able to quote and respond to. Not a problem. I sometimes try to breakdown my posts to the two NGs to its simplest forms so that they might grasp the meaning -- I know, I know -- dumb of me to try.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


So true. They say "OJ might have hit her, but she could have/should have done bla bla bla" & go on for 5 paragraphs. They brush right past his heinous behavior. They suggest that she could have left. She did & look how it turned out. Pitiful. Did you ever get around to reading Petrocelli's book? I enjoyed it. I am reading Darden's now.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Did you ever get around to reading Petrocelli's book? I enjoyed it. I am reading Darden's now.

Hi fbg,

I am reading Petrocelli's book right now. I'm almost half way done with it. I like his approach to telling the story. Darden's is alright. His insight OJ disappearing is interesting.

:read:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I'm about 1/2 way through Petrocelli's & I enjoy it also. Very easy to read. I laugh when I read when he talks about OJ's facial expressions (who me? nah) & noises. How do you like Darden's so far? Some parts of it were so perfect in description -- OJ big ole head wagging. LOL

I have just finished Toobin's and he was pretty tough on Darden (and all prosecutors) so I didn't know what to expect but after reading the first couple of chapters, I think it may be pretty good. Reading the history of where he was raised and his family dynamics puts him in a different light. I didn't feel one way or the other about him during the trial except I thought he acted really immature when it came to dealing with Cochran and I wasn't exactly in awe of his examination skills. I do believe though that he gave a very good closing when he talked about domestic abuse.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi fbg,

I am reading Petrocelli's book right now. I'm almost half way done with it. I like his approach to telling the story. Darden's is alright. His insight OJ disappearing is interesting.

:read: Like I said, I enjoyed Petrocelli's book and found some facts that I had not realized/registered before. The end is quite poignant.

Reading the first of Darden's book where he writes as though he is OJ outside of Nicole's is spookey..........Wonder how close to the mark it came? I think it may have hit the target -- especially when he talked about his obsession with Nicole -- HIS possession.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I'm about 1/2 way through Petrocelli's & I enjoy it also. Very easy to read. I laugh when I read when he talks about OJ's facial expressions (who me? nah) & noises. How do you like Darden's so far? Toobin wrote that you could always tell when the truth was too close for OJ's comfort -- he would start mouthing and reacting.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I just got a visual of a big old monkey at the zoo :tongue: LOL -- I don't remember what it was in but I saw a picture of him recently and thought what a fat, old man he was.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


those were students at Howard University, but i can see how it looked like the black community to you. At any rate, I was angry when the black community cheered the acquittal of their double murderer but then I thought about it and realized why wouldn't they cheer? They weren't afraid of him. They knew he wouldn't be living among them or dating/marrying their sisters or daughters.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you may be able to force others to give you answers exactly and specifically the way uou want them BUT NOT ME.
:flamemad: ROFLMAO --- uuuuuuuu---oooooooo----you tell her rayray! hahahahahaha

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Problem- To Much Television and News

Solution- More interaction outside the OLD COMFORT ZONE Can't be -- remember, I'm the one that reads.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



RR2 and I aren't making excuses for OJ.. We're defending our position on his guilt or innocense, that's why this board was created...:seeya: Let's quit arguing over this.

netta, I understood you to say in an earlier post that you believed Fuhrman and Vannatter purposely played a part in protecting OJ but you never went further with your thoughts. I would like to hear them if you want to share.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
I worked with a guy and met his family he was nice to me, but after the verdict he STOPPED speaking to me.. The day the verdict was read my entire department was so stunned they went outside to vent... All of them came back into the work area and for the entire day didn't speak to me!!

I took off the rest of the week and came back on Monday, some of them came around alot of them appeared to be ashamed for the way they reacted to me.. This one guy from that day to this one hasn't spoken a word to me.. NOT THAT I CARE!!

But you don't see me clumping the entire race into the same category as this 1 group of people!!! Sorry, but you do clump people into one category. I worked with a young black woman during the trial. Since we worked in a very busy department at a health science center, we didn't have time or resources to listen to the trial as it was happening and nothing much about it was ever said. On the day of the verdict, a group of us listened to the verdict read and the only comment made was from this one young woman: "I knew that n****r didn't kill that white girl."

As God is my witness I have just told the truth. I don't want to jump to conclusions but you didn't happen to react with glee when you heard the verdict did you?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg

look
if nicole had not been killed by someone, and her lifestyle had come to light as it has now, YOU would be the first to call her a tramp. IMO

It's okay for OJ to be a man-wh*re, but it's not okay for Nicole to be a tramp? Why doesn't this surprise me coming from a man?

JMO and MOO!!

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


don't think this one would ever venture to a place where the people did not look like her. LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


so what the hell are you worring about OJ AIN'T MOVING ON YOUR BLOCK. hahahahaha LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg

look
if nicole had not been killed by someone, and her lifestyle had come to light as it has now, YOU would be the first to call her a tramp. IMO You are wrong. There was no reason to call her a tramp. You are vile little man to continue trashing her.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


so what the hell are you worring about OJ AIN'T MOVING ON YOUR BLOCK. hahahahaha LOL -- he'd live on my block before he would yours. LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
FBG

your words.

"DARDEN"

"I wasn't exactly in awe of his examination skills. I do believe though that he gave a very good closing when he talked about domestic abuse."

would you be so kind as to informe me whick law school you attended where you were taught proper examination skills LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
alien


Originally posted by alien


. Again, I say, the jury was giving the finger to the white community.

not to the white community. that is the hateful stuff bob august pushes.

it may have to the lying cops and the fancy footed m clarke. but not all white people. how would that be possible. many white people thought oj was not guilty including the two that were on the jury. as always, the ill informed rayray is wrong.

[fbgweezer]

netta,

I was serious when I asked about your theory of the case. I've never heard anything like it and would really like to hear what your thoughts are on it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


-------------------------
I have not grouped anybody into 1 category, please review all my post..

I believed OJ was guilty, and so I didn't follow the trial in the beginning... In 2001 surfing the web I ran across Bob August website and his version of events, and i was thinking something isn't adding up.. I later went on to read Wagner site and he was able to explain some things that Bob's site completely ignored (IMO).. However, Wagners theory was a bit more than I could swallow.. However Wagner site did clear up the domestic violence for me, and that is what made me think that DV had nothing to do with OJ and Nicole's marriage.... why though? What about the DV makes you think it didn't play a part in the murder?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


It was not there and there was NO escalation of violence.. you continue to take that stand even though all testimony and evidence -- including OJ himself -- show that there was violence?

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I know what you mean. Kinda like potato chips. Not really good for you, yet you pick up the bag anyway. :D

Hey, "Chick" :D

I opened the darn bag of chips again. Here I go to post some answers.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you can take my comment any way you like. since you asked, yes she does and she admits it. it is not said nor does she takle it in a hateful way as you seem to have concluded.

:seeya:

I have never hit my lady and she has a nice size trap on her (mouth)

RAY

I copied what you said. I took it to be disrespectful. I didn't use the word hateful. I said disrespectful. Mr Alien and I joke around and say things to each other, but we know from the git go, that it is joking around. It never gets out of hand. We say these things to each other. If I ever found out that he said something like you said to someone else, I would be upset and feel that he wasn't being respectful of me.

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is a GENERALIZATION of what is perceived by a handful from something seen on television.

example:

Radical Minority makes a statement: Somehow this person speaks and represents the entire race. How is that?

I am not trying to start an argument with you. However, you and rayray have admitted to being Black and it is your comments that I was thinking about. Also, you said "something seen on television". If you are talking about what I saw after the verdict was read and saw Black people celebrating and cheering, what else would I think. Mark Furhman was shown to be a racist and the whole "color" (not trying to be a smarty pants here) of the trial changed.

Suddenly it wasn't about murder, it was about racism and the color of OJ's skin. IMO, MF was a small portion of the trial. It seems that after that, nothing else was going to matter. I do think that television distorted things after that whole MF debacle. Television started playing the race game. But, you know what, I never fell into that trap thinking it was White against Black. You only know me from this board, but my real life is about acceptance. I don't give a rat's a** about race, creed, origin etc. I watched the trial because I was interested at first. A famous person on trial for the murder of their ex-wife and some poor Joe that just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I watched the trial and read everthing I could get my hands on. That is what made me think OJ was guilty. I never thought of him as a Black man. Just OJ, who the public knew because of his football career, his commercials and his movies. I even thought he was a hotty.

When I saw the cheering on television by Black people, I was dumbfounded. How could anyone cheer that a murderer was set free. It boggled my mind. Then when I heard some of the comments by jurors, I was double dumbfounded. What happened to justice.

I could go on and on, but I hope you see what I am saying here.

[alien]

rayray, you addressed a long post to me and I want to address your points out of courtesy. However, I am going for my nap because I have to work an overnight shift.

I copied your post and will reply tonight when I am at work.

However, I really would like to see you do some research on DV. You mentioned in another post about a Family member being hit by boyfriends. Was she just hit or did she go through the entire gamit of what DV is all about? Believe me there is a huge huge difference.

Have a good weekend.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


alien

that may very well be how you would take that comment and i see nothing wrong with you taking it that way.
but that is you. not my lady. her self esteeme and confidence is much to high and she is much too successful in her professional life for a comment like that to bother her at all. It was actually a small joke that i make the mistake of including in my post as it gave some the opportunity to try get personal with me. sorry.

Okay rayray, then we will drop the subject. However, don't ever think that I don't have self esteem and self confidence. I myself have am very succesful in my profession. I am a supervisor for a nation wide call center. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Good for you and your lady.

If I took what you said at face value, from my way of thinking, it was disrespectful. If your lady doesn't think that way, that is cool. I just would never want my husband to say something to somebody who didn't know me from Adam to get a false impression of me. Does that make sense?

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


read my post. she made the wrong choices of two boyfriends and was abused by both by both hitting her for various b.s. ( short period of time) i put a stop to that in both instances.

however we felt that she needed some education on how to make choices, ( boys)which she got and was helped by it.

what i was trying to say is that some women/men continue to make these kind of wrong choices throughout their lives about their mates and this is one reason why abuse follows them.
and in some instances

Good for her that she had a family to help her out and educate her. However, DV is such a complex thing and that is what I will address to you. The other points you made.

[alien]

Originally posted by alien


Okay rayray, then we will drop the subject. However, don't ever think that I don't have self esteem and self confidence. I myself have am very succesful in my profession. I am a supervisor for a nation wide call center. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Good for you and your lady.

If I took what you said at face value, from my way of thinking, it was disrespectful. If your lady doesn't think that way, that is cool. I just would never want my husband to say something to somebody who didn't know me from Adam to get a false impression of me. Does that make sense?

Let me add to this post. One of the reasons that I have the self esteem and self confidence in myself is that I took 7 years to find out who Alien really was. I learned to take care of myself and make all the decisions in my life. When that happened, I was ready for a good relationship. When Mr Alien came around, I was ready to make good choices. My Son (who has since passed away) introduced me to this wonderful man. I figured if my very protective Son saw something good in him, there was no way I could lose. We were both right. He is a wonderful husband and life companion. I pray you have the same relationship with your lady.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

ok
i understand.. the ex califgirl, the volunteer night time play cop that rides around helping the cops bust her neighbors.

:lol:

At least Califgirl was doing something constructive with her down time which is more than you can say about what you do with your down time!

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes:

[limakey]

Wukong,

IMO, there has always been and always will be a double standard when it comes to a man cheating on his wife. It doesn't matter what race the man is, it doesn't matter if if he is rich or poor. Men are still able to get away with cheating because as we all know, "boys will be boys", "come on, she came on to me, what was I suppose to do?!" and my all time favorite, "it didn't mean anything, it was just sex!".

I also believe that there are men and yes, women who can separate sex and love. However, a woman does pay a price for this attitude and ability where I don't believe that men do.

In your example, you mentioned that Nicole was playing "hardball" about the kids. Now, how can she play the game without the ball? What Nicole meant by this statement never made any sense to me. She had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ, in fact, it appears to me that she thought it was very important for her kids to have a relationship with their father. On the night of the murders, OJ and Nicole weren't speaking, he asked to speak to Sydney and she handed the phone over to her daughter. IMO, if she was playing "hardball", she would have said she was sleeping or just hung up on him.

Was Nicole statement about "hardball" really along the lines of no more picking them up late and no more dropping them off early. No more picking them up early and no more keeping them late? No more switching weekends----if you have a business meeting and need to be out of town or whatever, they you take care of the daycare arrangements, etc.

Nicole simply had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ.

[limakey]

Taz,

Again, what did the inside of the house have to do with the actual evidence? What did the pictures of his family and friends have do with where the socks were found? What did it have do where the glove was found?

Isn't it fair to say that both sides do their best in every single trial to sway the jury to their side? From day one, the DA's and the LAPD went on offensive to taint the jury the pool, why else was the 911 taped released? What about the leaks that could have only come from the police?

And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO.

[limakey]

Wukong,

I have never met a person who has been through a divorce that did not have feelings of guilt and in some cases, a deep sense of failure. I know how I feel about mine and I am reminded of this everytime I look at my child.

When a woman is married to a man who was never faithful to his first wife, I don't understand how she can so shattered that he is now unfaithful to her. Did she really think that things would be different with her? A woman only has two choices in situations like these, either she turns a blind eye to it or she gets a divorce because of it. I give Nicole a lot of credit for her divorce--she finally understood what she felt for a long a time, that she could not and would not put up with the cheating. You can love someone with every fiber of your being, but if you can't trust that person to be faithful, how can you have a marriage?

OJ Simpson saw Nicole in a very intimate position with another man, what did he do? He rang the door bell and walked a way. The next day, he confronted Nicole and her date and what did he do? He shook the other guy's hand, said that his concern was that anyone could have seen them and that his kids were in the house. I don't know about you, and you may call me petty and immature, but if I saw my ex in the same situation, I would have ruined that Kodac moment in heartbeat. I never would have left until I knew they knew that I was there and I saw them. Again, you can call me petty, immature and even a vandalizer, because I'm pretty sure the cops would have been called after I threw a brick at the window, but I still would take satisfaction knowing that I at least interupted their mood.

You are also forgetting that Cora went to OJ and told him that Nicole was in trouble, that he needed to get away from Bundy. He didn't listen. How could he not feel guilty about that?

Also, it seems to me that Nicole did use OJ as a sounding board during their breakups, I believe he did warn her about her new circle of friends, that they were going to bring her down. Apparently, he didn't make his case strong enough because he believes that it was this circle of friends that got her killed.

Wukong, have you ever said a disrespectful thing to the mother of your children? Have you ever hung up on a girlfriend? Have you ever said anything that you later regretted and did you have the courage to say you are sorry?

OJ and Nicole Simpson were human, they had 17 years together and not every day was perfect, but then again, who does have a perfect marriage? Who can honestly say that they never have said or did anything to their spouse or significant other that were later ashamed of themselves?

I remember thinking about the 1993 incident and when it was played over and over again and how to many people, this was all they need to hear to know, actually know that OJ killed Nicole. My response is, how many times on that same night and that very same minute that this same type of scene was being played across thousands of homes in our country and around the world but the cops were never called?

My point is, if you are a perfect human being, a perfect husband or wife, then by all means, post away about the Simpson's marriage. However, if you have done some of the same things that they have done to each other, I think your comments should be limited. IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


she knows no one on this message board and sometines wonder why i spend my time posting here. since she knows that i always respect her opinions and what she does, she has no reason to think otherwise.

i have never spoken about your self esteem as i would have no idea about that subject.:)

That's cool then.

[limakey]

Ray,

IMO, OJ and Nicole did push each other's buttons (which is another reason why I don't believe he killed her) but I don't think that was the case with the kids.

They both had ample opportunity to turn their personal war into an all out war that included Sydney and Justin and I don't think there is any evidence to support that.

In fact, I think one of the most interesting aspects of Paula Barberi in this mix is that she was just plain tired of being second to Nicole and the children. Paula played a tough game and she won a few of the battles but she knew she would never win the war.

[limakey]

SoCal,

In reading several of the posts, it does appear to me that anything that OJ ever said or did to Nicole is just more evidence of his guilt. Yet, the examples used are very common in many marriages and in many divorces.

And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.

I do agree with you, that Nicole's "hardball" could have meant nothing more then ensuring that he kept on schedule when it came to visitation with the kids. However, some people have turned this into another motive for OJ Simpson.

[limakey]

Ray and Netta,

From what I remember, Nicole wanted to separate. OJ didn't want to separate and he gave Nicole a choice, if she really wanted a separation, then it would end in a divorce. Nicole did file for separation and I think it was OJ who filed for divorce.

Apparently OJ was very happy with Paula when Nicole approached OJ with a reconcilliation offer. I think they agreeded to try it out and in a year, they would either re-marry or break up again.

I don't think people ignore that it was Nicole who wanted to get back together again, I think they ignore the pattern of behavior and some very significant points. Nicole was a devout Catholic, she ensured her children were raised Catholic and she was truly a devoted mother. She really wanted things to work out and wanted to have a two parent home for her children. There is nothing wrong with that.

People also ignore that while OJ was complete dog when it came to other women, he didn't like the fact that he was divorced for a second time either.

I think Nicole and OJ both knew how to push each other's buttons and I also believe that OJ Simpson had no reason or motive to kill Nicole.

IMO, he always believed that he and Nicole would end up together and I think Nicole felt the same way. Just at this point in their lives, it just wasn't working out.

I have not seen any evidence to even suggest that Nicole and OJ's last break up was different from all the others. I haven't seen any evidence where Nicole just sucked up OJ's cheating and somehow this time it was different. There wasn't enough time.

What is interesting is that in Faye's book, she keeps saying that OJ said that if Nicole started seeing someone before August, before he left for New York for the football season, he would kill Nicole. That never made any sense, yet it is often repeated in her book. First, stalkers don't leave nor do they say that they will only kill before a certain date but after that date, the person is safe. Makes no sense. I still think Faye is the key to this case. IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place.

limakey,

I think you may have missed the point in that post. rayraytwo was pointing ut that Nicole could hold her own against OJ in a fight. I found that offensive and was responding with exactly why she wouldn't be able to hold her own. I'm not certain how you interpreted that to mean that I was defending violence of any sort?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.


I'm stunned.

I do believe you have much to research on domestic violence, or at the very least should read some of the things I posted in regard to this very idea some pages back.

Any person that you contact that works in the field of domestic violence will be able to explain to you far better than I that there is a very large difference between an instance of battery and being a batterer.

In general, the majority of what you post reagrding domestic violence seems to have a very limited view and knowledge. I would go as far as to say that the actual batterers that I have met with would even tell you as much.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

Some people just want to ignore the instances where nicole wanted to get back with oj and he said NO. I don't think oj faught the divoice.

Sometimes I truly don't think you read this board, but rather just post when you have something you want to say.

No one has ever ignored that Nicole wanted to reconcile and that OJ at first said no. As a matter of fact, I myself have posted greatly on this topic and not too long again.

What is it about you and netta that ignore such things, since she agreed that everyone ignores this topic?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

Again, what did the inside of the house have to do with the actual evidence? What did the pictures of his family and friends have do with where the socks were found? What did it have do where the glove was found?

Isn't it fair to say that both sides do their best in every single trial to sway the jury to their side? From day one, the DA's and the LAPD went on offensive to taint the jury the pool, why else was the 911 taped released? What about the leaks that could have only come from the police?

And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO.

Limakey,

Exactly!! What did the inside of the house have to do with the evidence???? Why were they exposed to this? Why did they change it???? Why did they change it??? WHY did they change it? And, why would Ito let them walk THRU the house? And, especially thru the trophy room? It was an orchastrated manipulation. That's not how the house looked on the night in question. I believe that was the worst type of manipulation. Using race. They played on this jurys emotions to win. To get off of a murder charge.

Yes, it is fair to say that both sides do their best to sway the jury. However, if a man is innocent I don't feel they have to create an illusion. It is funny that you blame the LAPD for all of this media manipulation since Johnny Cochran and team had daily conferences to dog the LAPD and prosecution. They accused them of all types of misconduct. In public.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


are you sure?
i guess in your mind he would see you and say to himself WOW i want a house next to fbg, i could mack her.:) :confused:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

People also ignore that while OJ was complete dog when it came to other women, he didn't like the fact that he was divorced for a second time either.

I think Nicole and OJ both knew how to push each other's buttons and I also believe that OJ Simpson had no reason or motive to kill Nicole.

IMO, he always believed that he and Nicole would end up together and I think Nicole felt the same way. Just at this point in their lives, it just wasn't working out.

I have not seen any evidence to even suggest that Nicole and OJ's last break up was different from all the others. I haven't seen any evidence where Nicole just sucked up OJ's cheating and somehow this time it was different. There wasn't enough time.

*snip*First, stalkers don't leave nor do they say that they will only kill before a certain date but after that date, the person is safe. Makes no sense. I still think Faye is the key to this case. IMO.

Limakey,

I don't think any one ignores that OJ didn't want to be divorced or didn't like it. I agree with that. I agree that he WANTED to be with Nicole. But, he didn't want to be with her enough to stop cheating. No one, not even him, can expect someone to stay under those circumstances.

I also believe that both OJ and Nicole pushed each others buttons. I believe Nicole tried to stand up for herself. I believe she tried to "not put up with" his mistreatment. However, that is a fight she could never win. He was much better at it all. He could take away friends, money and threatened to take away the kids.

I think you are completely wrong about OJ thinking that they would get back together this time. She found out that he was still seeing Paula during their reconciliation. He could always manipulate her with money. That's why he sent the IRS letter. But, it wasn't working this time. She was actually going to move instead of giving in to him. She returned a very expensive gift. She wasn't going to be bought this time. Things were definately different this time. She was trying to stand on her own two feet. She was going to move out of the area. That had never happened before. OJ left messages stating that for the first time IN HIS LIFE he was completely single. Please don't ignore that. He WAS upset because he was divorced, wasn't going to have the kids back in the house and Nicole was "playing hardball" with the kids.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
it is a sad situaiton for a "weak" person to find themselves in.
however i do believe that there is always a way out. people just have to reject what ever trade off they have made and get out. You obviously do NOT understand DV........Just like the murders, you continue to blame the victim. Pathetic.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The jury hasn't never said, the MF issue was a deciding factor, where are you getting this? Juror Carrie Bess after the verdict, "We take care of our own." I've forgotten the black male jurors name but you'll know the one -- he gave OJ the black power salute after the verdict.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped *Originally posted by limakey
In your example, you mentioned that Nicole was playing "hardball" about the kids. Now, how can she play the game without the ball? What Nicole meant by this statement never made any sense to me. She had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ, in fact, it appears to me that she thought it was very important for her kids to have a relationship with their father. On the night of the murders, OJ and Nicole weren't speaking, he asked to speak to Sydney and she handed the phone over to her daughter. IMO, if she was playing "hardball", she would have said she was sleeping or just hung up on him.
The hardball statement was made by OJ to Kato after the recital when OJ was whining about how Nicole was dressed, etc.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO. I think the difference is that the defense is allowed to denigrate/bash/trash victims and even witnesses to further their arguments. In this trial, the dream team told such blatant and ourlandish lies/theories and were never made to prove any of it up. The jury wanted to let OJ go and the dream team threw out enough garbage to allow that to happen. MOO

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
Wukong, have you ever said a disrespectful thing to the mother of your children? Have you ever hung up on a girlfriend? Have you ever said anything that you later regretted and did you have the courage to say you are sorry? However OJ and Nicole interacted could have possibly been like millions of couples with a couple of huge differences: There are pictures, police reports, the 911 call, battered women's shelter call log and Nicole's diary that show the abuse over many years AND she was brutally murdered with ONLY three people's blood and DNA at the crime scene -- OJ, Nicole, Ron.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place. I've never interpreted anything Kate has posted to infer that it was okay for ANY abuse in the Simpson marriage. I understood her post to be that OJ was so much larger than Nicole AND Nicole was the one bruised and cut -- that for him to float his story about how Nicole abused him is ridiculous. MOO

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kate

i have never read that you knew oj or nicole or were ever in their presance. so i don't know if you are able to evaluate the physical abilities it either.
ojs doctor testified that he was in not in very good shape. " if you put him on a chair and asked him to jump off he could not do it"

because he was a professional football player some years ago does not mean that he was in the same shape at the time of the murders as he was when he played ball. as a matter of fact most exfootball players suffer from all kinds of physical problems after retirement and many have their careers shortened because of these problems.

some of nicoles friends have said that she gave as good as she got or something very close to that because she was in great physical shape. this does not mean that for sure she could give oj a goos lick or two and it does not mean that oj could have his way with her in every confrontation.

additonally maby you should consider not talking others post here as a personal affront to yourself.

If nothing else, you have given me a laugh this morning. You obviously do not understand that you do not need to "know" two people in order to comprehend the very simple fact that a man at 200 and some pounds will always be able to overtake a woman at 135 unless some type of special martial arts was involved, which we all know wasn't.

Furthermore, we know that he could and did over take her that night. How? He didn't have a lump while she was clearly beaten.

Please come back and post to me when you can interpret something logically and lay off the games.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I've never interpreted anything Kate has posted to infer that it was okay for ANY abuse in the Simpson marriage. I understood her post to be that OJ was so much larger than Nicole AND Nicole was the one bruised and cut -- that for him to float his story about how Nicole abused him is ridiculous. MOO

Thank you for understanding my post.

I'm not quite certain how it was interpreted any other way.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
i think ac was a stand up guy for nicole and oj.

the kind of guy one would like for a fox hole buddy.
ray Yes, I can see that you would admire him. If I were an abuser and muderer, I'd like my very own lackey too. I could send him to the house to get the bag of stash I'd hid in the neighbor's trash can. I could let him take the wife I'd beat up to the hospital while I went to the Rose Bowl. I could call him over to my hotel in the middle of the night so I could berate my wife in front of him and then have him go down to the parking lot to pick up her clothes. Geez, there's any number of things my 'fox hole buddy' could help me out with.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
alien

i under dv quite well. low self esteem in the abuser and the abused, need to control another person, mean streak, loneliness,
manipulative behavior, and many other negative traits and attitudes. the victim of abuse over a long time seem to tell herself that she is traped and there is no way to recover to a good relationship.

it is a sad situaiton for a "weak" person to find themselves in.
however i do believe that there is always a way out. people just have to reject what ever trade off they have made and get out.

Not all women who end up in abusive relationships start out weak or lacking self confidence. The dynamic is that they are eventually broken down and disciplined that way.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.
Since you said earlier that had you caught your husband cheating on you that 'the police would have been called' because of the reaction you would have had. I wonder what you would have done when you found the housekeeper was hiding his *****s in her bedroom to keep you from finding them? IIRC, the maid never did testify to the slapping.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg

maby you need to read the law as it relates to the responsibilities of defense council as it relates to defending their clients.

Perhaps we all should because I find it interesting that Alan Derschowitz (one of OJ's defense attorneys) stated in an interview that at times during the trial he was uncertain how he could sleep at night and had to question himself on whether or not he was defending a client within the legal moral guidelines.

Interesting.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


maby you should post answers to your own quesitons this way you will be guaranteed to get the answers you agree with.:)

This is your vintage response when you know that you've been made to look like a fool, so thank you for another laugh.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
ojs doctor testified that he was in not in very good shape. " if you put him on a chair and asked him to jump off he could not do it"

because he was a professional football player some years ago does not mean that he was in the same shape at the time of the murders as he was when he played ball. as a matter of fact most exfootball players suffer from all kinds of physical problems after retirement and many have their careers shortened because of these problems.

additonally maby you should consider not talking others post here as a personal affront to yourself. Wrong, AGAIN. You need to read the doctor's cross-examination testimony -- OJ was not crippled and was more than capable of committing the murders........obviously. Did you not see the infomercial workout video he was filming -- certainly looked fit to me. Do you not realize that he was also filming the Frogmen movie that required him to be physically fit?

You advising other posters not to take things personal is laughable.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
the pros leaked dna results before some test were even done.
Please post a link to this statement.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


tazzy
i am sure you know that both sides did damage control for thier sides in the case.
the pros leaked dna results before some test were even done.
talked to the media all the time. no defense will just keep their mouths closed and they should do as much damage control as required on bahalf of their client.

it is my personal opinion that the trip through the throphy room did little to sway the jury one way or the other. imo.

Hi rayray,

Yes, I know that both sides did damage control. However, I believe that the defense went way too far. The defense made up allegations. They lied. The prosecution leaked true information. And, I also don't think it was the prosecution who did it on purpose. Most of the time it was people not directly involved in the investigation/prosecution.

I disagree with you that the trophy room had no effect. I don't think it was any kind of deciding factor. I believe that it helped the jury continue to believe that he could not have killed her. No way could this rich, famous and super athlete kill his wife. It was unjust prejudice.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Thank you for understanding my post.

I'm not quite certain how it was interpreted any other way. I get the feeling sometimes that misunderstandings are needed for some posters to expound on their ignorance of this case. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg

maby you need to read the law as it relates to the responsibilities of defense council as it relates to defending their clients. I'll read the law when you read the transcripts of this case.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
the winner or one that stands his own ground or is able to defend himself/herself in a physical altercation is not determined by weight of the two people. it is determined by who gets in the best and some times the first blow. jason made statements about how much nicole had seemed to have bulked up of late. i guess from weight lifting, so she may have been in better shape
than some 135 lb women.

but if oj did go to bundy and nicole had placed the large knife on the table because of some noise she may have heard outside, wouldnt she have taken the knife to the door when she opened it.

It is a proven fact that no matter how conditioned a woman is, she will rarely be as strong as her male counterpart.

Why do you think that men and women take two seperate physical tests when they are trying to become a firefighter? Because women (most) are unable to pass the same physical test that a man can.

It doesn't matter how rosey you attempt to paint the picture.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
the winner or one that stands his own ground or is able to defend himself/herself in a physical altercation is not determined by weight of the two people. it is determined by who gets in the best and some times the first blow. jason made statements about how much nicole had seemed to have bulked up of late. i guess from weight lifting, so she may have been in better shape
than some 135 lb women.

but if oj did go to bundy and nicole had placed the large knife on the table because of some noise she may have heard outside, wouldnt she have taken the knife to the door when she opened it. You mean the winner wouldn't have any marks but the loser would? Kinda like the marks on OJ and Nicole had that night? Oh, that's right -- OJ didn't have any injuries.

Since there is undisputable proof that OJ did go to bundy that night and that OJ did murder Nicole and Ron, I assume your remark about why she wouldn't have taken the knife to the door is for?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i will try to set you straight one more time.
the issue is not strength of either party. as we are not talking about a wrestling match where strength is important.

the issue is, who can fight the best in a tussle and who can defend him/herself best when attacked. kicking, slinging arms and fist included. it has nothing to do with weight or strength. but you may not understand this because i doubt that you have ever been in a fight with a man or a active woman.

You have failed to set me straight, but I appreciate your attempts.

Why is it that you doubt that I've ever been in a fight?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


defense attorneys are required to use everything in their power to create reasonable doubt , by law. Wrong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


maby you should post answers to your own quesitons this way you will be guaranteed to get the answers you agree with.:) Kate, he may have a point here. We know that the debates would be much more intelligent than you have with some posters on this board.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
i will try to set you straight one more time.
the issue is not strength of either party. as we are not talking about a wrestling match where strength is important. But, but, OJ said they were 'wrassling' --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


well is was said that ron had defensive wounds on this hands.
i think the prosecution tried to say ther were not defensive wounds. but oj had none on his body. so who did ron hit with his fist. every expert agreed that ron put up a big fight for his life. did he not hit oj at all? You are correct -- they did all say that Ron fought for his life. They also all agreed that he was trapped between the iron fence and the tree and that his flailing probably resulted him hitting the tree instead of his attacker (OJ). How do you think OJ's cap and glove were found at Ron's feet? How do you think OJ's hair got on Ron's shirt?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


just a assumption from your post. as you seem to be against violence in any shape or form at any time. but i could be wrong.

so have you been in a fight with a man or woman, if so who won?

You are correct that I have never once been in a physical altercation. You are also correct that I am against violence in any form, though let the record show that I would not hesitate to defend myself if attacked.

[tazzybaby]

Something that I find odd....

Allen Park was the one who picked up Paula Barbieri after the murders and took her to Rockingham. That is wild to me. Especially since his boss had to know that the would be a witness in the trial. It just seems wierd to me. I wonder if OJ requested it so he could talk to Allen Park?

:read:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if kate would post her own answers to her quesitons, there would be no debate as she would always get responses that she agree with. there would be no debate. but debate is why we are here i think.

you may want to consider answering yourself also, this way i am sure you will become less frustrated and angry at the person giving you the response.:) LOL -- do you even pay attention to what you post?

[tazzybaby]

Hi rayray,

We are just going to have to disagree on the changing of the house for the jurors. I believe it was wrong. I believe that pictures that they took down and replaced was wrong. And, if OJ was truly innocent he wouldn't have to go thru such theatrics.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Something that I find odd....

Allen Park was the one who picked up Paula Barbieri after the murders and took her to Rockingham. That is wild to me. Especially since his boss had to know that the would be a witness in the trial. It just seems wierd to me. I wonder if OJ requested it so he could talk to Allen Park?

:read: My guess is that this is the car service that for years had catered to OJ so that's who OJ trusted. Besides, who thought OJ was guilty those first days? Certainly not me.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if kate would post her own answers to her quesitons, there would be no debate as she would always get responses that she agree with. there would be no debate. but debate is why we are here i think.

you may want to consider answering yourself also, this way i am sure you will become less frustrated and angry at the person giving you the response.:)

rayraytwo,

I very much enjoy debating ... when it is done with a level of intelligence, information, and a willing to be wrong at times. It seems to me as though you are never willing to be wrong.

I'm not afraid to give you credit where credit is due. For example, you pointed out something several pages back that was right on target regarding victims of violence. You made the statement that some women who have been in such a position continue to make choices with other partners that are unwise and allow the same scenario to continue on. That is very true, and that is how the cycle of violence continues.

I once met with a woman who was abused in her five year long relationship. After that relationship was over she ended up being in three more relationships in which she was either physically or emotionally abused. It was her own doing after her initial relationship ended that the cycle of violence continued for her.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
tazzy

just because nicole was moving did not mean that oj would not be able to see his kids on the schedule dictated by the family court. it may mean that he/she may have had to drive further for the meetings but no way would she be able to keep him from seeing his kids on a regular basis. nor do i think she would want to do this.

i have always thought that ojs refusal to participate in the irs scam( he was advised by his lawyer not to expose himself in nicoles plan) was a message to nicole. "ok we are now seperated for good. you go your way and i go mine. no reason for me to participate in this scam. you will have to make due with the payments i give every month. how you arrange your finances is your business not mine. no more extra help from me"
i see nothing wrong with him talking this position. she was saying it is over. he was saying it is over. I don't think Nicole was playing hardball with OJ's visitation, etc. It's not as though he was a hand-on dad anyway. Between his work, golf and girlfriend schedules, he just didn't have time for the kids on a regular basis.

I believe Nicole made it clear to OJ that she was not returning to him and that is when the escalation started. The IRS threat, the expensive jewelry and even his acceptance of her smoking (the lighter he gave as a gift) were not enough to change her mind.

[fbgweezer]

I was reading trial books this weekend and found where altough the defense touted Dr Lenore Walker saying that OJ did not fit the profile of a batterer, she had, before she was hired by the defense, given a speech at USC where she said OJ did fit the classic profile of a batterer. Also, the national domestic violence association came out after her statements about OJ not fitting the batterer profile and said how she came up with that was a 'mystery' to them since OJ was by all accounts, by all experts, a perfect pattern to an abuser/batterer. Wonder why the defense 'leaked' Walker's statements instead of calling her to the stand to testify?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I was reading trial books this weekend and found where altough the defense touted Dr Lenore Walker saying that OJ did not fit the profile of a batterer, she had, before she was hired by the defense, given a speech at USC where she said OJ did fit the classic profile of a batterer. Also, the national domestic violence association came out after her statements about OJ not fitting the batterer profile and said how she came up with that was a 'mystery' to them since OJ was by all accounts, by all experts, a perfect pattern to an abuser/batterer. Wonder why the defense 'leaked' Walker's statements instead of calling her to the stand to testify?

Very interesting find, fbgweezer.

In Walker's notes that were turned over to the prosecution in the civil trial she stated that OJ did fit the definition of a batterer and that Nicole did fit the definition of a battered spouse. These notes were taken by Walkler when the criminal trial was going on, so no one can say that she just changed her testimony to fit the civil trial.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


as god is my witness i don't belive your last paragraph. you know you KNEW oj was guilty of murdering nicole on 6/11.:) Kiss my azz rayray. If you have nothing to add to a post except your ignorant remarks, just pass. Go do something else. Hey, I've got it! Read the trial transcripts.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



They all knew on this date... LOL:beer: And you and rayray knew he hadn't -- Isn't it funny how that works?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



She first said OJ fit the description based on what she heard in the media.. Then after she examined the Football Great she realized OJ wasn't a batterer!!!

Simple as that You can't twist this one -- she made the statement before the defense hired her and then also wrote it in her notes after interviewing OJ...........Even OJ said he abused Nicole, why won't you accept that?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


Considering that he refers to his wife as having a big trap one might assume that he's lacking a little in some necessary areas of his marriage that require some upkeeping from outside individuals, if ya know what I mean.;) :lol:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


nope on 6/13 when the news hit i thought , why oj. did you do this? on 6/17 i thought and asked my lady do you think he did this did?

after the trial started i knew oj did not kill anyone but maby a squirrel with a golf ball on the 18th hole.:) You are the person OJ and the dream team prayed for and got...... LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to receive those black eyes and broken arms from your many husbands.:) you pitiful little man...........how dare you attack someone so maliciously. I think you have gone too far and need to be reported.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kayleighjo
[B]

Your ignorance :


Granted we're on different teams, and from time to time we will have to disagree, but I give you my promise not to result to insults... I'm going to be sorely disappointed in you if you back rayray in his malicious attack on kay........We are always telling each other that we're ignorant about some subject or the other but his remarks went beyond the line.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


The funny thing fbg is that rayray has finally showed his true colors. We now know why he goes to such lengths to protect OJ, because he obviously condones battering.

Don't worry hun, it doesn't bother me. In fact, I'm glad he posted it so that we all can see just how much like OJ Simpson rayray truly is, though I'm guessing without the cash and many other women on the side. ;) I guess you are right about rayray showing what he is but there is still no place on this board for his vicisiouness..........no reason to attack you personally.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to receive those black eyes and broken arms from your many husbands.:)

I am almost speechless in response to what I have read above.

Your character has shown through, and what it is showing is something that only the most vile and disgusting type of individual would dream of posting to another person.

Your message has been recieved loud and clear rayraytwo, and it's a message that is unfortunate to any abused woman in this country and in this world. You have made it clear that violence and condoning such violence will never cease as long as individuals such as yourself continue to exist.

How disgusting.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I am almost speechless in response to what I have read above.

Your character has shown through, and what it is showing is something that only the most vile and disgusting type of individual would dream of posting to another person.

Your message has been recieved loud and clear rayraytwo, and it's a message that is unfortunate to any abused woman in this country and in this world. You have made it clear that violence and condoning such violence will never cease as long as individuals such as yourself continue to exist.

How disgusting. :beer:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


my post is to kay for the filthy post she made to me. so you can just shut up. Are you telling me to shut my 'big trap'? :no:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


since you call my post vile. obviously you did not read the comments about my lady by kay to fbg which caused my post to be what it was. There is nothing in that post that could possibly justify your malicious and hateful attack on kay. The others are right -- you have shown yourself for what you are.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg
BIG TRAP is your way of putting it not mine.
you never told me the size of the azz you told me to kiss so how would i know if you have a BIG trap or not? You just don't get it do you?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
would you mind explaining exactly what you meant by your above post. in plain english if you can.
ray why don't you go first? Explain to her just exactly what your hateful, malicious post meant. You know, the one where you say she deserves broken arms and black eyes. Go ahead rayray, tell us all.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Here's a suggestion, can we get back to the reason this thread was created.. OJ :beer:

[limakey]

Taz,

Don't know how closely you followed the Jackson trial but the judge imposed a gag order on all parties. Right before the trial started I think a reporter got a hold of the grand jury transcripts or something like that. The judge then gave an order that Michael Jackson could make a statement regarding this but it had to be within the guidelines he set.

The point is, that much of the media spin on this case started long before Johnnie Cochran came on the case. And those leaks could have only come from the police and the DA's office.

I do believe that both sides are media savy enough to know that you may lose the case the court of law, but it is a whole different story with the court of public opinon. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics when it comes to this, IMO.

While I'm sure that Mr. Simpson's home was impressive, even with out any changes, I'm sure the jurors were more baffled about how the glove got back there, why there was no evidence leading to it or from it and the carpet was white, where is all the blood? And what about Bundy? That hurt the DA's case more then Rockingham did. The area was so much smaller, with the condo cleaned out, it was difficult to understand how no one heard anything.

It goes both ways.

[limakey]

Taz,

Define hardball. The only hardball Nicole could play was to ensure that OJ maintained or kept to the parental visitation schedule. There is no evidence to suggest that Nicole wanted to keep the kids aways from OJ, there is no evidence to suggest that OJ ever threatened Nicole with the kids.

OJ and Nicole both knew each other's weak points and it happened to be their genuine love for one another. They weren't perfect, but they knew deep down inside that each other were the loves of their life. However, there are many people who have had a love of their life and haven't been able to make a go of a relationship or a marriage. It does happen.

I also firmly believe there are people in this world you can't stand so much that borders on hate, yet you can respect that person for their job performance or ethics. I also believe that you can love a person dearly but not trust or respect them. I think that is where Nicole was with OJ. She could never ever trust him and I don't blame her.

In one of the letters that Nicole writes to OJ she talks about him taking about the "30 thing", and I have seen many friends of both sexes go through pretty radical changes during this age. I truly believe in "mid life crisis" and I don't think it is anything to laugh at or make fun of. They do happen and OJ may have thought that Nicole needed to get some things of things out of her system, to try things she felt that she missed because she was with him for so long and that when everything was said and done, they would be together in their villa in Mexico, like they talked about for years.

Have you ever had a friend who has broken up with someone or divorced someone but when you talk to that person, they tell you how the other person keeps calling them and acting like they are still together or that it is like they broke up yesterday instead of 5 years ago? IMO, OJ and Nicole had some many break ups and makes up, that I think each felt comfortable knowing that if they really wanted the other back, it would happen, all they needed was time because still at the end of the day, they still loved each other.

While I no longer have any feelings for my ex, I still say my prayers at night and thank God for him because without him, I wouldn't have my son.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

It was getting a little off track, I hope HOTWATER doesn't shut us down!!

Excuse me, but what's up with the "holier than thou" attitude all of a sudden? GMAFB!

[tazzybaby]

Hi Limakey,

So, you believe the note that Nicole sent to OJ? You believe the things that she said, right? Well, that should mean that you also believe the diary. There was A LOT of evidence that OJ was controlling, abusive and down right mean. And, you should ask what OJ meant by "hardball". He's the one who said it. If it wasn't a big deal then why did he even say it?

This was not a "normal" relationship. I understand that everyone fights. I understand that people can get nasty when they go through a divorce. This went beyond that. All the proof of his abuse proves that. Also, remember that Nicoles friends couldn't testify to everything that Nicole said due to the hear say rules. That doesn't mean it wasn't said. Keith testified to OJ's threats. This is when they weren't together that he followed Nicole and intimidated anyone she was with. This is at the same time that he was seeing Paula.

When OJ bullied his way into Nicoles house on Gretna Green, he was pissed off. He was talking to her on the phone and she wouldn't talk to him anymore, she hung up on him. She didn't want to fight. What did OJ do? He went over there. She was going to listen to him no matter what. He forced his way in and continued to scare and harass her. I don't care what his reason was or if anyone feels he was justified to be upset. No one has a right to bully their way into someone's house where they are not wanted at the time. She was genuinely scared. She called 911.

Have you ever read her diary entries? Don't you find it odd that she would put things in her lockbox relating to abuse? She told one of her friends that she was afraid that the next time OJ freaked out he would kill her. That was three days before she was murdered. She made notes in the margins of a book about abuse. She talked to her mother about it. She told her..."mom, this is me". She told many of her friends that she was moving. She was moving away from OJ. She had never done that before. She wasn't giving in to him this time.

It is so sad to me that so many people think it means nothing. She knew that this would happen. She knew that he would get away with it. She knew that he would kill her. She knew that no one would believe he did it or believe her. She could feel it coming. She knew if she made the complete break from him he would kill her. But, she had made up her mind to make that final break.

I believe Nicole! I believe the messages and proof she left behind.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

Don't know how closely you followed the Jackson trial but the judge imposed a gag order on all parties. Right before the trial started I think a reporter got a hold of the grand jury transcripts or something like that. The judge then gave an order that Michael Jackson could make a statement regarding this but it had to be within the guidelines he set.

The point is, that much of the media spin on this case started long before Johnnie Cochran came on the case. And those leaks could have only come from the police and the DA's office.

I do believe that both sides are media savy enough to know that you may lose the case the court of law, but it is a whole different story with the court of public opinon. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics when it comes to this, IMO.

While I'm sure that Mr. Simpson's home was impressive, even with out any changes, I'm sure the jurors were more baffled about how the glove got back there, why there was no evidence leading to it or from it and the carpet was white, where is all the blood? And what about Bundy? That hurt the DA's case more then Rockingham did. The area was so much smaller, with the condo cleaned out, it was difficult to understand how no one heard anything.

It goes both ways. The LE and prosecutors were put under a gag order by their own department and I don't think anyone is pointing at Cochran as the sole person to leak information/misinformation to the media - Robert Shapiro did a fine job all on his own.

It isn't the fact that OJ's home was impressive or not compared to Bundy. It is about the defense staging the site -- making it appear to be different thus reflecting the murderer differently. I don't know about you, but once I am inside my home at night, eating dinner, watching tv, showering, etc., There was never a contention that the attack was 'noisey'. In fact, even the witnesses that we know had to have been outside and/or passing at close to or the exact time of the murders heard nothing or in Heidstra's case only two voices -- only one of which he could understand the words of, "Hey. Hey. Hey." I don't hear a lot that goes on outside. I found out one morning that our neighbor had been rushed to the hospital and although the ambulance had sat at the end of the drive with lights flashing and left with siren screaming, I never knew it happened. One of the points of your post is right on though -- the size of the attack area. It is the prosecution (and many others) opinion that the area is what enabled OJ to trap Ron.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
OJ and Nicole both knew each other's weak points and it happened to be their genuine love for one another. They weren't perfect, but they knew deep down inside that each other were the loves of their life. However, there are many people who have had a love of their life and haven't been able to make a go of a relationship or a marriage. It does happen. I think OJ was obsessed with Nicole. I think Nicole was afraid of OJ and did what she had to do to keep him appeased. That's not to say that there wasn't love at some point or that she could have even still felt something for him. But when I look at the evidence of abuse and listen to his explanations of the relationship I don't buy that there was any great love between them. OJ has been proven to be an abuser and a wh*re -- I don't believe Nicole could have loved that. MOO

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by tazzybaby
I believe Nicole! I believe the messages and proof she left behind. Your post is perfect! :beer:

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The jury hasn't never said, the MF issue was a deciding factor, where are you getting this?

Should have said JMO, but I keep thinking I read it some where. Can't promise that I can find it, but I will look.

It's been a couple of busy nights at work so I didn't get to post much.

Have a great one.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by alien


Should have said JMO, but I keep thinking I read it some where. Can't promise that I can find it, but I will look.

It's been a couple of busy nights at work so I didn't get to post much.

Have a great one. I'll also look since I remember at least one of the jurors remarking that she knew he was evil the minute he walked in and took the stand. Everyone knows that the race card was in the deck and it was, as Shapiro said. ". . . played off the bottom. . ." The Gs have continued to insist that the jury did not consider race in their decision which is of course ludicrous. Had they have considered the overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt, he would be in prison now. They did not. My belief is that race was the first factor in their decision to acquit and ignorance was the second. MOO

[alien]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'll also look since I remember at least one of the jurors remarking that she knew he was evil the minute he walked in and took the stand. Everyone knows that the race card was in the deck and it was, as Shapiro said. ". . . played off the bottom. . ." The Gs have continued to insist that the jury did not consider race in their decision which is of course ludicrous. Had they have considered the overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt, he would be in prison now. They did not. My belief is that race was the first factor in their decision to acquit and ignorance was the second. MOO

I am still searching for the information. I wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been no Mark Furhman?

Then IMO there would never have been any reason to bring up racism in this trial.

[alien]

WHOA!!!!

rayray really went to far IMO. Did anyone report him?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by alien


I am still searching for the information. I wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been no Mark Furhman?

Then IMO there would never have been any reason to bring up racism in this trial. There would have been racism in the trial without Fuhrman because that was the only thing they had to defend the murderer with. If you recall, racism was there before anyone even knew about Fuhrman and his history. The shame is, the jury could have had a video of the murders (they had everything but a video) and they were not going to find Orenthal guilty. I forget how many 1 in whatever billions the DNA match was to OJ's blood at the scene -- blood that was found and collected BEFORE OJ had returned from Chicago -- just that should have been enough for a conviction. Nope. That jury and that community was not going to convict one of their own. MOO

[fbgweezer]

netta, you've never told us your theory on why Fuhrman and Vannatter would have covered for OJ. I'm still interested in hearing it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He did didn't he? I don't know if anyone reported. I did notice a new registered nic yesterday & was lurking. He might be arming himself with a spare ;) I don't know why he even posts on this board. I cannot think of one incident where he added anything that was relevant. He's very good at screwing with the facts but he has yet to offer anything tangible or factual to support any of his fantasies. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I agree. All the defense could possibly come up with was police conspiracy, because otherwise everything pointed to Simpson.

I think Petrocelli did a much better job of trying this case, but he had the benefit of more time to prepare & the information that was already gleened from the first trial. I think the civil judge did a much better job also. But, in the end I don't think any of that would have mattered with the first jury. They were going to set their man free. Period. imo Listened to this guy on TV the other expounding on the "Curse of OJ" -- seems he thinks Cochran, Kardashian and Shapiro have already suffered it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I've often thought about that myself....I wonder who's next, Bailey? My understanding is he's been killing himself for years with alcohol. Sure hope I'm alive when it's AC's and Orenthal's turn.

[fbgweezer]

I read in Darden's book that Cochran made his reputation and money by suing LAPD. I don't remember knowing (LOL) that Cochran was Reginald Denny's attorney and sued the cops for not protecting Denny from the rioters who tried to kill him. In fact, I'm not sure that it was ever settled. Looks like if Cochran couldn't make his hate money off of the blacks he had no problem with twisting the argument to support getting hate money off of whites. He really was a pariah among humans. MOO

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
The LE and prosecutors were put under a gag order by their own department and I don't think anyone is pointing at Cochran as the sole person to leak information/misinformation to the media - Robert Shapiro did a fine job all on his own.

It isn't the fact that OJ's home was impressive or not compared to Bundy. It is about the defense staging the site -- making it appear to be different thus reflecting the murderer differently. I don't know about you, but once I am inside my home at night, eating dinner, watching tv, showering, etc., There was never a contention that the attack was 'noisey'. In fact, even the witnesses that we know had to have been outside and/or passing at close to or the exact time of the murders heard nothing or in Heidstra's case only two voices -- only one of which he could understand the words of, "Hey. Hey. Hey." I don't hear a lot that goes on outside. I found out one morning that our neighbor had been rushed to the hospital and although the ambulance had sat at the end of the drive with lights flashing and left with siren screaming, I never knew it happened. One of the points of your post is right on though -- the size of the attack area. It is the prosecution (and many others) opinion that the area is what enabled OJ to trap Ron.

Thanks fbgweezer. Great Post. Only a couple of things to add.

Yes, the defense had many, many news conferences spewing malicious and incorrect information in an attempt to sway public opinion. The difference between the prosecution and defense is that fact. The defense had to manipulate, lie and use smoke and mirros to get their client off. I was trying to say that the prosecution did have a leak but they didn't know who it was. They did leak certain information. However, they didn't hold daily conferences trashing the defendant.

And, you're so right about the noise. Limakey thinks that the kids heard the murders. I COMPLETELY disagree. They were very far from the murder scene in their beds with their doors closed. When they were awoken they didn't know what had happened. Sydney kept calling her house to try and talk to her mother. If they heard the murder she wouldn't have done that. I believe she would have went down stairs and looked for her mom if she heard the murders. Thank God she didn't.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Your post is perfect! :beer:

Thanks fbgweezer!

[tazzybaby]

Thanks Kay!!

For Nicole...

:rose:

We believe.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by tazzybaby
Limakey thinks that the kids heard the murders. I COMPLETELY disagree. I agree with you. Besides, I keep thinking of Nicole's 911 call where she tried to keep her voice down and kept trying to get Orenthal to be quiet because the kids were sleeping. I too believe he would have murdered his children had they walked in on his murderous attacks. MOO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He did didn't he? I don't know if anyone reported. I did notice a new registered nic yesterday & was lurking. He might be arming himself with a spare ;)



socaldiva, I think you may be right. rayraytwo may not be back using that name.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

About three quarters of the way through Darden's book. Not sure how I would critique it except to say it does give a glimpse of him and his thought processes. I'm not sure how I feel about him -- he certainly has a chip on his shoulder. You would think he'd say his prayers daily that he was able to become what he has. MOO

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think he'll be pretty easy to spot. It will only take a couple of posts. :D

Looks like his posts on this thread went poof :shrug:

I thought I was loosing it, because it seemed that there weren't as many pages as yesterday.

Too bad that it had to get so nasty on rayray's end. I mean we all have opinions and it gets heated some times, but a personal attack like that is totally unacceptable. As my Daughter says to her kids, totally unacceptable behaviour. I was so taken aback when I read it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think that trial affected him deeply & hopefully some of the chip has fallen away, but when he spoke on Oprah about the case, he still seemed bitter. I think I would feel the same way. I do too but not for the reasons I'd originally thought. Have you read his book? Anyone?

[alien]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


Mine went poof too, but I'm still kicking around.

He probably feels like a fool, as he should:)

Why did your's go poof. I don't remember you posting anything that was completely offensive.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I do too but not for the reasons I'd originally thought. Have you read his book? Anyone?

I read Darden's book. I really think Cochran did him wrong. And, if I were Darden, I would not have had anything to do with him after that. However, I also think the DA's did him wrong after the fact. I do believe he has a chip on his shoulder. But, I do believe it is somewhat understandable. I have always deeply admired him for standing up for what he believed in even though he was ostracized for it. The image of him comforting Kim Goldman is burnt in my brain. I believe he truly cared, truly wanted justice and believed he was doing the right thing.

Darden's book was okay. Nothing really new. I did enjoy the part regarding the bronco chase. I never knew the details that he gave. I believe he talks more fondly of Marcia than she of him. I think they liked each other the same. Maybe she was trying to squash the rumors of romance.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
I read Darden's book. I really think Cochran did him wrong. And, if I were Darden, I would not have had anything to do with him after that. However, I also think the DA's did him wrong after the fact. I do believe he has a chip on his shoulder. But, I do believe it is somewhat understandable. I have always deeply admired him for standing up for what he believed in even though he was ostracized for it. The image of him comforting Kim Goldman is burnt in my brain. I believe he truly cared, truly wanted justice and believed he was doing the right thing.

Darden's book was okay. Nothing really new. I did enjoy the part regarding the bronco chase. I never knew the details that he gave. I believe he talks more fondly of Marcia than she of him. I think they liked each other the same. Maybe she was trying to squash the rumors of romance. I got the impression that he was hurt by the way Cochran treated him because he was a 'brother'. What makes you feel the DA's did him wrong?

There was so much in the earlier chapters about his life that as a poor person growing up in the south, I could relate to and I'm not black. Now, before someone says how much worse I would have had it had I been black also, let me tell you that my truth is my truth -- being poor and white is very, very hard.

I've found tidbits through out the book that have added something to the facts as I've understood them. I do believe he cared about the Goldmans and the Browns. His description of the murder night as seen through OJ's eyes is scarey.......it's as though he read the murderer's mind. MOO

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I got the impression that he was hurt by the way Cochran treated him because he was a 'brother'. What makes you feel the DA's did him wrong?

There was so much in the earlier chapters about his life that as a poor person growing up in the south, I could relate to and I'm not black. Now, before someone says how much worse I would have had it had I been black also, let me tell you that my truth is my truth -- being poor and white is very, very hard.

I've found tidbits through out the book that have added something to the facts as I've understood them. I do believe he cared about the Goldmans and the B