General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD [Archive] - Page 4

limakey

04-29-2006, 01:35 AM

Wukong,

I truly don't understand the importance you place on Paula's message to OJ.

The DA's were desperate for a "trigger" for the murders. I don't remember the Paula Message Debate was brought up in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, the DA's just played it like OJ was mad at Nicole and when he couldn't get hold of Paula, he figured he had enough time to do the whacko hacko on Nicole (and anybody else for that matter) and make it back in plenty of time for his plane.

And if Paula left a message that she may be going out of town, what does that tell you? Maybe Paula left more then one message.

Think about it, she leaves this long message early in the morning, so early in fact that she knows exactly where OJ should be on the golf course. Now if she knew what fairway he would be on when she made the phone call, what are the chances she knew what time he would be back in his car and get her message?

Do you ever think that maybe Paula was a tad pissed off, that she left another message about going out of town?

And don't you think Paula was tad pissed off that before the love of her life mentioned her in his letter, that he talked about his first wife and his love for Nicole and that Paula was "special"?

And how do you think Paula felt when Gretchen Stockdale testified and when Kato testified about Tracy O'dell? I don't consider myself to be a jealous person, but I do have some pride.

limakey

04-29-2006, 01:46 AM

2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck?

limakey

04-29-2006, 02:22 AM

Taz,

Everybody has buttons and while this is sad to say, it is true, the people that can "push" them the best are our closet friends and love ones. No one deserves mental, emotional and/or physical abuse regardless of age, race and sex.

I have never nor would I ever deny that OJ Simpson was abusive to Nicole but she was abusive as well. They both played with each other's heads and hearts. It doesn't matter who started it or who finished it, what does matter is that they were both abusive.

Taz, what if it was Nicole who killed OJ? Would you say because of the 1993 incident, that Nicole was justified in killing him? Would you say that OJ deserved what he got because he pushed her too far?

I read many posts where G's have said that Michelle deserved what she got when Nicole slapped her. That Michelle was helping OJ and for that, she deserved to get slapped. I don't understand that logic.

It appears to me that it doesn't matter what Nicole said or did, she didn't deserve anything she got, but if anyone was on the receiving end of Nicole's slaps or abuse, they deserved what they got because they made her do it or OJ made her slap Michelle.

I don't have shades on Taz, because I have looked at this case and this evidence from both sides, I have read the books from both sides. I even had the opportunity to ask Marcia Clark a question about Nicole being a battered woman and if she killed OJ would she been able to use the 'battered woman's syndrome" as a defense and she said no.

The problem I have with the diary comes from Darden's and Clark's book. While the Browns have been pretty much slammed into the ground, I have always defended them. No matter what they did or said, I believe they loved their daughter and their sister and for whatever reasons, they sold what they did. But when I found out about the diary and how they held it away from the DA's, I have to ask questions about it.

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

Also, you have to remember, the diary was never allowed into evidence because everything that was in it was true, it was allowed into the civil trial to illustrate (not sure that is the right word) Nicole's state of mind.

And AC Cowlings, he loved both Nicole and OJ and he testified to what he knew and what he was told, he didn't always paint Nicole in a positive light. He knew Nicole hit OJ and OJ did nothing but look stupid why trying to protect himself. Did OJ deserve to be hit?

Wukong

04-29-2006, 03:23 AM

Hey Limakey,

I think Paula leaving a message may have just added a little bit more sh*t to and already bad day. OJ was probably more pissed off because he played like sh*t on the gofl course that morning. The main reason I'm posting about Paula's message is mostly about OJ lying and because I have been working on what was really said in the police interview as I have been listening to the audio the past few days.

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

04-29-2006, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck?

You never even answered any questions that I asked of you in my post. You completely blew it off, turned it around and then sent me the above post, which makes no sense at all. You seem to be doing that a lot lately, with other Posters as well.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

04-29-2006, 05:32 AM

2Late,

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, really. I'm just applying your logic to the facts in this case as I see it.

limakey

04-29-2006, 05:44 AM

Wukong,

My hat is off to you on your research and Mr. August's. (Of course I don't agree with you guys on anything on this case and I think we probably couldn't agree on the color of air, however that is what makes our country great!)

However, don't you find it odd that you two, after years and years of going over this case, have pointed out things that a multi-million dollar state funded trial lawyers and experts never did?

As you know, I never understood why the DA's went with a crime of passion, I thought that was the perfect motive when I head about the murders.

Then I found it odd that they really wanted to make it seem like Ron and Nicole were nothing more then people who had a cup of coffee together and by chance, may have met again at a club.

Then when they went with DV for the motive, it made sense, because clearly Nicole was not a battered woman in the eyes of the law because there was not enough evidence to support it.

They way you and Mr. August relay your thoughts, it like OJ was having a bad day, a real bad day so when his maid called out for the night, he decided to knock off Nicole and he didn't care that the kids were still up, he didn't care that Sydney's friend was sleeping over, he didn't care who saw him coming or going and he just went nuts for a minute and a half, but then pulled his act together so well, he was able to control his bleeding.

As I have said before, women breaking up with OJ was no big deal to him because he was and still is a cocky SOB and he knows that when a woman falls in love with him, he can always get her back.

After reading Paula's book, which I thought was kind of odd thing to do anyway, I realized she is totally one pissed off woman who not only was going to be 3rd in OJ's life, but she was a lot like Nicole. She went after him after he broke with her. Now maybe Paula got a little of her own back.

And I'm sorry Wukong, I saw Paula's TV Book tour and you don't write a book like that and then refuse to say that he is guilty. She kept on saying that she can't even think about a man she loved could do something like that---when in her first TV interview, she said she knew for a fact that OJ didn't do it. That she knew about how sore he was the night before and that everyone knew, including Nicole, you only had to go for his knees and OJ would end up on the ground like a cripple.

Paula was also upset because after OJ got out of jail, he promised her he would go to church with her and then he didn't go. She felt he should have been more greatful.

She may be beautiful, but I truly believe Paula has her own issues and she wanted to save her career. IMO.

Wukong

04-29-2006, 08:00 AM

Limakey,

I think you and I would agree on many things outside this case. I am not a one dimensional person and this case is just entertainment for me, I don't take it too seriously. I do truly feel OJ was responsible for the murders though.

I don't think OJ was just having A bad day, I think he was having a bad life. What did he have going for him at that point in his life? A joke of a movie career, no future in sports commentating (He was awful, it was painful to listen to him trying to speak coherently on Monday night football), Trouble with business (got in way too deep with the wrong people), the women in his life dropping him like a bad habit, reduced to hanging out with Kato (OK, that was a joke). He really had no friends outside golf, no spirituality, glory days long behind him..... I think he was a miserable man. I don't know what he was thinking or feeling during that time and niether does anyone else. But I truly believe he was depressed (evidenced by his completely falling apart after the murders) and pissed at a lot of stuff. He was, and still is, a very angry man inside.

I think Martin points out a very important clue; the man would not go to Church with Paula. Without a belief system people are lost souls. When things went wrong, he had nothing to fall back on. Money, girls, cars? Meaningless when your soul is empty.

My opinion

Wukong

Wukong

04-29-2006, 12:13 PM

Martin,

That was my opinion and my opinion only. I wrote "My opinion" at the end just for this reason. Again, this is my opinion. OK?

Just my opintion,

Wukong

limakey

04-30-2006, 12:37 AM

Wukong,

If there was evidence to support what you said about OJ thinking he had a bad life and/or was basically morally stranded at the time, I think you may have had a point.

OJ Simpson was more then the first and only man to gain 2,000 rushing yards in a 14 game season. While he was always be known for that, people forget the weather he played in and the Bills sucked for years and years. I don't think the Bills had more then 2 winning seasons while he was on their team.

No one could take away what he accomplished on the field and no one could take away what he accomplished off the field. He was the first African American professional player to make a very, very smooth transition not only into the world of endorsements, but also into business as well as in the commentator's booth. While I agree that in the beginning, it was rough going his first season on MNF, however, I think that if you ask many people who was the worst commentator ever on MNF, I think there would be several names that would be said before his. Like, Howard Cosell. He was brilliant man, he wrote an unbelieveable book and yet, he was hated for his commentaries. Dandy Don Merdith, was funny, that was it, I still remember him singing, "The Lights Are Out, The Party Is Over". I think the best voice MNF had ever was Frank Gifford, followed very closely by Al Michaels.

However, no matter what you think of his abilities as a commentators means nothing when you compare it to the number of doors it opened up for other professional athletes, especially African-American athletes.

As for his movie career, he had excellent reviews in some of his films and he also opened the doors to other athletes. He had a successful production company.

In Simpson's "suicide letter" (I don't know what else to call it), he said don't feel sorry for him, he had a great life. He had great friends, family, etc. I don't believe that Simpson ever felt the way about himself. He was too successful to ever look back and brood over the minor set backs he had. Because they were minor in terms of his career.

The night before the murders, he attended a $25,000.00 a plate meal for the First Lady of Israel. He had his picture taken with Presidents while playing golf. He always had a beautiful woman on his arm and while he may have loved Nicole, it was obvious that she did not enjoy and did not want to play the "glamour wife". She simply didn't have the skills, nor did she desire to have the skills of an "Air Kiss-Kiss Wife". Nicole didn't "do lunch" she ate lunch. Nicole was much more content and happy being a stay at home wife and mother. That was no secret.

If OJ Simpson did feel the way you described him, then he should have blown his head off because then I would have say that he learned nothing from his mother.

bobaugust

04-30-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by limakey

OJ Simpson was more then the first and only man to gain 2,000 rushing yards in a 14 game season. While he was always be known for that, people forget the weather he played in and the Bills sucked for years and years. I don't think the Bills had more then 2 winning seasons while he was on their team.

And isn't it ironic that it was at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993 where Simpson's 2003 yard run was being celebrated by the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on the anniversary of that date that photographs were taken that show Simpson wearing the shoes that he chose to wear when he committed the murders.

bobaugust

alien

04-30-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Many actors do B movies just for the money. OJ must have had some value to NBC, they hired him. i think oj's social life in LA was still in tact. on 6/11 wasn't he a contributor and guest at some big charity benefit dinner in LA. It was testified to that oj had many friends including some in le in LA.

He was constantly traveling around the country for business and pleasure. Does this translate into him being a loner? Remember
he must still have had some value to Hertz on 6/13.

IMO,IMO

OJ probably did have some value to NBC. He was a famous football player, but that didn't make him a good commentator. How many years did he commentate?

Traveling around the country for business and pleasure does not make you an "unlonely" person. If you do that for a living that is what you do. Many a lonely depressed person has continued on with what they do for a living because they have to, not because they want to.

alien

04-30-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

And isn't it ironic that it was at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993 where Simpson's 2003 yard run was being celebrated by the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on the anniversary of that date that photographs were taken that show Simpson wearing the shoes that he chose to wear when he committed the murders.

bobaugust

Ah, irony....

I am thinking of a song with the lyrics "....God's gonna getcha for that...". It was his karma. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial and allowed to go on with his life (well kind of), but in the big picture, he was found guilty in the civil trial. He was still allowed to go on with his life, but not the life he had before or probably envisioned for himself. All is MO.

alien

04-30-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

While I agree that in the beginning, it was rough going his first season on MNF, however, I think that if you ask many people who was the worst commentator ever on MNF, I think there would be several names that would be said before his. Like, Howard Cosell. He was brilliant man, he wrote an unbelieveable book and yet, he was hated for his commentaries. Dandy Don Merdith, was funny, that was it, I still remember him singing, "The Lights Are Out, The Party Is Over". I think the best voice MNF had ever was Frank Gifford, followed very closely by Al Michaels.

However, no matter what you think of his abilities as a commentators means nothing when you compare it to the number of doors it opened up for other professional athletes, especially African-American athletes.

As for his movie career, he had excellent reviews in some of his films and he also opened the doors to other athletes. He had a successful production company.

In Simpson's "suicide letter" (I don't know what else to call it), he said don't feel sorry for him, he had a great life. He had great friends, family, etc. I don't believe that Simpson ever felt the way about himself. He was too successful to ever look back and brood over the minor set backs he had. Because they were minor in terms of his career.

The night before the murders, he attended a $25,000.00 a plate meal for the First Lady of Israel. He had his picture taken with Presidents while playing golf. He always had a beautiful woman on his arm and while he may have loved Nicole, it was obvious that she did not enjoy and did not want to play the "glamour wife". She simply didn't have the skills, nor did she desire to have the skills of an "Air Kiss-Kiss Wife". Nicole didn't "do lunch" she ate lunch. Nicole was much more content and happy being a stay at home wife and mother. That was no secret.

If OJ Simpson did feel the way you described him, then he should have blown his head off because then I would have say that he learned nothing from his mother.

Dandy Don may be remembered for his humor and singing those goofy songs. Howard Cosell may have been hated for his comments (your opinion), but he was a part of MNF for quite some time and IMO he was actually respected by his colleagues. Neither of those gentlemen will have the cloud of suspicion over their head as to whether they killed their ex-wife. That is OJ's legacy from now on. We may remember back at some of OJ's other accomplishments (we did before the murders), but the big picture is that OJ is mostly remembered for the murders and the never ending saga of "did or didn't he do it?).

So because Nicole wasn't a "glamour wife" does that give OJ the right to have other beautiful women on his arm (or was this after they seperated, seperated, seperated?).

IMO, OJ wouldn't blown his head off, he was too selfish to do that.

Can you explain that thing you said at the end about his Mother. I didn't understand it. Thanks.

Wukong

04-30-2006, 11:40 AM

Limakey,

By 1993 OJ was a has-been. He started out his post playing days as a color comentator for MNF and by 1993 he was reduced to the occasional "Let's go to OJ on the side line". Now they have women in funny hats doing that job. By 1993 athletes were signing multi-million dollar endorsment deals and OJ was representing Swiss Army and being payed to play golf for Hertz, not exactly A list stuff. By 1993 OJ's movie "career" was a series of roles playing the butt of the jokes.

By 1993 who are his friends, his support group? Nicole is gone, Paula is schtuping Michael Bolton. Who are his friends? A bunch of guys he plays golf with? His friends in LE consisted of a few patrolmen who would stop by for autographs and Ron Shipp? He is either out of town or playing golf and spends little time with the kids. Beautiful women on his arm?? Paula was beautiful but she was a ditz. No real woman was going to be seen with that has-been. Maybe some 20 something year old with low self esteem is all he could muster. What substance would there be in that kind of relationship? What kind of moral support? What does he have now? Some ditzy twenty something year old with low self esteem and a drug problem.

I stand by my opinion

Wukong

alien

04-30-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
Limakey,

By 1993 OJ was a has-been. He started out his post playing days as a color comentator for MNF and by 1993 he was reduced to the occasional "Let's go to OJ on the side line". Now they have women in funny hats doing that job. By 1993 athletes were signing multi-million dollar endorsment deals and OJ was representing Swiss Army and being payed to play golf for Hertz, not exactly A list stuff. By 1993 OJ's movie "career" was a series of roles playing the butt of the jokes.

By 1993 who are his friends, his support group? Nicole is gone, Paula is schtuping Michael Bolton. Who are his friends? A bunch of guys he plays golf with? His friends in LE consisted of a few patrolmen who would stop by for autographs and Ron Shipp? He is either out of town or playing golf and spends little time with the kids. Beautiful women on his arm?? Paula was beautiful but she was a ditz. No real woman was going to be seen with that has-been. Maybe some 20 something year old with low self esteem is all he could muster. What substance would there be in that kind of relationship? What kind of moral support? What does he have now? Some ditzy twenty something year old with low self esteem and a drug problem.

I stand by my opinion

Wukong

I think I stand by your opinion also.

2L8 4A D8

04-30-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

would you call a staring role in ROOTS a joke of a acting career??

Maybe not Wukong, but I would! JMO, of course!

Wukong

04-30-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong
Claims were, that O.J. was too "nice" for the role of the cold endoskeleton cyborg known as the Terminator.

wikipedia

"The Terminator"?

I was going to say something about this one but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I found a good article about this exact issue written by a clinical psychologist. Here is a quote and a link:

"Marguerite and 0.J. Simpson had three children. However, his addictive obsession with stardom led to the neglect of his wife and family. When he divorced in 1979, he proclaimed that his career dictated a different lifestyle, one Marguerite was not suited for. He left his Black woman in a narcissistic search for himself.

Most Black men are made to feel inadequate and seek to prove their worth. 0.J. Simpson is no exception. His movie career ended with him playing the buffoon. Instead of self-acceptance, 0.J. found more confusion, rejection and anger."

http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/krazyluv.html

Wukong

Wukong

04-30-2006, 08:08 PM

Here is what I find the most interesting quote from this article:

"The irony is that in the end he sought to return to the original woman in his life, his mother. Perhaps it was this desire that kept him from physically killing himself. However, 0.J. suffered a spiritual death."

http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/krazyluv.html

Wukong

Wukong

04-30-2006, 09:19 PM

Martin,

It may mean very little to you but I think it speaks to OJs state of mind at the time. His life was not all peaches and cream as you portend. Think about what he was reduced to in the declining years. He was no longer the star athlete, definitly no movie star, reduced to sideline commentary, no endorsment deals to speak of, his businesses at the time were limited to illegal sports betting and pornography........... I could go on and on but I have to catch a plane to Hong Kong. I'll continue later....

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, really. I'm just applying your logic to the facts in this case as I see it.

Limakey ~ I would appreciate it if and when that I post to you that you would answer the questions that I pose to you. It is very frustrating to take the time to post and then you don't answer my questions as they are presented to you!

limakey

05-01-2006, 12:56 AM

Bob,

While domestic violence was an issue that came into the headlines with the Simpson case, Mr. Simpson is not the first or even the most famous to man to abuse his wife. I believe there have been dozens of men, with much more money and power who have beaten their wives and they have gotten away with for years. In fact, several had high government post. Wasn't there secretary of Commerce who's favorite hobby was beating his wife?

While you ignore that Vanatter was impeached on this issue, the stats speak for themselves. The husband or ex-husband, even in cases where domestic violence has not been an issue are the prime suspects. They are looked at first, if only to eliminate them as suspects.

Police officers and detectives throughout our country know what goes on even in the "best of homes". That because you are rich and famous does not make a person incapable of any crime. Fame and fortune is not an automatic buffer between every day problems and issues. Fame and fortune does not ensure you will be as successful in your personal life as your professional life. It isn't a buffer from illness or crimes being committed against your family.

The detectives and the police had every reason to suspect OJ Simpson just based on the stats, but when at least three of the lead detectives on this case knew about prior domestic violence incidents between the Simpsons and the fourth one is told at the scene, how can they testify in court that OJ Simpson was not a suspect? That he was no more of a suspect then OJ's lawyer, Robert Shapiro? Them testifying to that is a crime against battered women every where because they never, ever recovered from that lie.

Vanatter, after being hammered and hammered in the press for his statement about this, then came up with the "potential suspect", which is any person who came in contact with or talked to the victims within 48 hours of their death. Well, how did Vanatter know when OJ last saw Nicole? How did he know that OJ saw his daughter dance that night?

In Shapiro's book, he says that Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station at 2:00 a.m. to find out where OJ was, that they were to ask the children.

Speaking of the children, if what the police said was true, their main concern was for the kids, then why not go right over to OJ's, if he wasn't a suspect, then they should have gotten those kids with their father? Why was Sydney only allowed to call her mother's home, knowing something terrible had happened and then hours later, she suddenly remembered Arnelle's phone number? Are we to believe that the police couldn't locate any family members to come and get the kids until hours later?

The fact that you insist on keeping blinders on this subject is why all your other points are not accepted by NG's. You can't see the reality of their lies and why because of these lies, anything they have to say now means nothing. They lied about issues that, if they were on the up and up, never needed to be said.

I'll give Vanatter credit, he took several hits for the team and he even defended Fuhrman, and what did Fuhrman do, he admitted he committed perjury but he also said he wasn't the only one and that Vanatter was just as guilty as he was, if not more. So what does that tell you about this case?

IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 01:14 AM

2Late,

I was responding to your post about not thinking Fuhrman was race challenged. I believe he is seriously race challenged and why I believe this.

You also made a fair statement, I think if all of us go back, we have all used a racial slur or laughed at joke that we knew better then to laugh at. Depending on where we grew up, many racial slurs were part of our up bringing or so common in our surroundings, that a big deal wasn't made of it. However, that clearly was in the past.

Right now, with my son, everything and everybody is "gay". You have no idea how I hate that. I have grounded him, I have grounded his friends who have come into our home and used this expression. I have tried over and over to get it through to them that this expression is not only a slur but it is hurtful in more ways then one---and the problem with that, is you don't know who you are hurting because not everyone is going to say why they feel it is a slur. He doesn't know which of his friends has a gay parent, a gay brother or sister, a gay realitive or even if the friend he is talking with is in fact, gay.

Mark Fuhrman knew exactly what he was saying, he knew exactly who he was hurting and his desires for African Americans and other minorities were not in the norm. His hatered of mixed race couples was open and he did nothing to hide it. While many people may not like seeing blacks and whites dating, there is a big difference between not liking something, keeping your feelings to yourself, then telling strangers that if you had your way, you would gather up members of one race and burn them.

I know I have laughed at things I shouldn't have, I know that I should have spoken up when I head some truly horrible things being said about another race, but never, ever did I ever wish a race be totally wiped off the face of the earth. Never did I ever even think that the only good thing young African Children were good for was for fertililzer for soil.

In fact, I have to laugh about the comments made about OJ Simpson not even knowing his way back to his 'hood. IMO, it is good thing that many of our forefathers didn't know their way back to their 'hoods, because then we wouldn't even be a country. IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 01:25 AM

Wukong,

I totally disagree with you about OJ's life. However, there is one very interesting statement in that article from the first Mrs. Simpson.

She clearly says that she was pushed aside by many beautiful women who wanted to get to her husband, but she does not say that they were all white women---she doesn't bring race into it.

Just an interesting point, IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 02:07 AM

SoDiva,

It has been my experience, that if a woman wants to meet a man, any man, she doesn't care who or what stands her in way. A wedding ring means nothing to her.

Women can be and often are just as aggressive in their conquests as men are. However, in our society, it is frowned upon.

However, I do agree with you that a man who cheats on his wife has no justification nor does it make it right. Yet, they do seem to get away with it. I'm still waiting for the first really famous and powerful woman to get caught up in a scandal like this. I bet she will not come out of in the same "shape" as men do. IMO.

bobaugust

05-01-2006, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Bob,

While domestic violence was an issue that came into the headlines with the Simpson case, Mr. Simpson is not the first or even the most famous to man to abuse his wife. I believe there have been dozens of men, with much more money and power who have beaten their wives and they have gotten away with for years. In fact, several had high government post. Wasn't there secretary of Commerce who's favorite hobby was beating his wife?

While you ignore that Vanatter was impeached on this issue, the stats speak for themselves. The husband or ex-husband, even in cases where domestic violence has not been an issue are the prime suspects. They are looked at first, if only to eliminate them as suspects.

Police officers and detectives throughout our country know what goes on even in the "best of homes". That because you are rich and famous does not make a person incapable of any crime. Fame and fortune is not an automatic buffer between every day problems and issues. Fame and fortune does not ensure you will be as successful in your personal life as your professional life. It isn't a buffer from illness or crimes being committed against your family.

The detectives and the police had every reason to suspect OJ Simpson just based on the stats, but when at least three of the lead detectives on this case knew about prior domestic violence incidents between the Simpsons and the fourth one is told at the scene, how can they testify in court that OJ Simpson was not a suspect? That he was no more of a suspect then OJ's lawyer, Robert Shapiro? Them testifying to that is a crime against battered women every where because they never, ever recovered from that lie.

Vanatter, after being hammered and hammered in the press for his statement about this, then came up with the "potential suspect", which is any person who came in contact with or talked to the victims within 48 hours of their death. Well, how did Vanatter know when OJ last saw Nicole? How did he know that OJ saw his daughter dance that night?

In Shapiro's book, he says that Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station at 2:00 a.m. to find out where OJ was, that they were to ask the children.

IMO.

Limakey, was it possible that the detectives automatically considered Simpson a potential suspect based on the fact that he was an ex spouse of one of the victims? Yes, but that alone certainty didn't make Simpson an actual suspect unless there was evidence to support that suspicion. They didn't know that the killer's blood was Simpson's blood. They didn't know that the killer's bloody shoe prints were made by Simpson. They didn't know that the killer's hat and glove belonged to Simpson. They didn't know if Simpson didn't have an air tight alibi.

Vannatter didn't know when he arrived at Bundy that Simpson had seen his daughter dance that night. If what Shapiro wrote actually happened it had nothing to do with Vannatter and Lange. If Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station and learned any information that came from the children not only did they never pass it on they never said anything about it after the case and no one every asked them about it. Not the prosecutors and not Simpson's attorneys.

The fact is that Vannatter and Lange were following orders that Commander Bushey first asked Phillips to do. To notify Simpson in person of the death of his ex wife and help him recover his children. That's the only reason the detectives went to Rockingham that night.

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

September 19, 1995

MR. SHAPIRO: "Did you have any notion at all that time that--"Answer: I didn't know who the suspect was. Anybody could have been a suspect at that point."
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Did you give those answers?
DET. VANNATTER: Yes, I gave those answers.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any doubt in your mind that you conveyed to the jury under oath that when you went to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was not a suspect?
DET. VANNATTER: There is no doubt in my mind. Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect at that point than you were, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony before the grand jury under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony at the preliminary hearing under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct, yes.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II
quesiton for anyone that knows the answers.

1. Paula told oj on 6/11 that she would be going to los Vegas
either that day or on 6/12 and she did not tell oj why. Does
this mean that she was having some kind of personal
relationship with M Bolton prior to 6/11 and oj was not aware
of it? She was on ojs arm at the dinner party on 6/11 as his
woman. Was she serious about the relationship with oj that
night?

2. If she was really closing the book on her relationship with oj
and this gave her a feeling of relief,(early 6/12) why did she
almost immediately come back to oj when he was arrested 4-5
days later ? 1. Maybe the beginnings of a new relationship with Bolton?

2. I wondered about this too so went looking for the answer and IIRC what I found, Arnelle called Paula and asked her to come back that her Dad needed her.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck? Again, anoher big leap on your part.

The only "Nazi" talk came from conversations with a screen writer.
Looks like a "Nazi"?
Walks like a "Nazi"?
Acts like a "Nazi"?
Looks like you bought Cochran's reference to Hitler hook, line and sinker. Too bad.

Okay, discount the backgate blood, the Bronco blood and the socks blood. You are still left with OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove and hair at the crime scene. How did it get there if not by OJ?

tazzybaby

05-01-2006, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,
*snip*

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

And AC Cowlings, he loved both Nicole and OJ and he testified to what he knew and what he was told, he didn't always paint Nicole in a positive light. He knew Nicole hit OJ and OJ did nothing but look stupid why trying to protect himself. Did OJ deserve to be hit?

Limakey,

They were volatile. However, physically OJ Simpson had the upper hand. He had the upper hand on EVERYTHING. He threatened her with Money, the kids, her family and her friends. He was going to destroy her if she didn't come back to him. But yet, you keep talking about how she was abusive to him. What does that mean to you? You keep saying that Nicole knew how to push his buttons. What exactly does that mean to you? What if OJ did call Nicole that night and fight with her? What if she said just the right thing (you know, push his buttons)? She caused him to lose his mind and come and murder her? It's not really his fault? It's hers? What exactly is your point in saying that Nicole pushed his buttons? Are YOU saying that Nicole deserved what she got because she pushed OJ's buttons??????

If the tables were turned Nicole would be in jail. She wouldn't of gotten off like OJ did. I would have understood why she did what she did but I would have also expected her to go to jail. The only way it would be justified is if he was trying to kill her at the moment. You keep trying to make some point with this. There is no point there to make. And, I do not care in the slightest what Marcia Clark told you about abuse. She didn't even put on the entire abuse case that she had. She made very bad judgement calls. She is not some kind of expert on abuse. And, yes Nicole would have been able to use the "battered woman's syndrome". Look at Susan Polk. There isn't even proof in her case.

It does not matter if Nicole complained constantly, didn't cook, didn't clean, didn't look right, gained too much weight, didn't bow down to OJ, didn't go where he wanted to go, wouldn't let the cheating go or ANYTHING else. She did not deserve to be hit so hard that she had bruises. It did not mean that she deserved to be choked. Remember that the cops saw finger marks on her NECK when they responded to the 911 call. So, Nicole slaps OJ for cheating.....it's okay for him to choke her since she slapped him? She provoked him so she deserved it. She should never put herself in a man's position by hitting him in the first place? Once she does that then all's fair? I've heard many a man say that.

You definately have shades on whether you admit it or not. You can not look at the abuse issue without bias. You need to look at the proof of abuse in the CIVIL trial. That's when all of the abuse came out. They didn't use it all in the criminal trial. Clark decided not to. So, the criminal trial is of no use for issues of abuse. Your proof is in the civil trial. Read Petrocelli's book. He details things that her friends said. You use the books for your arguments. So, please read his book. Read about the things that he couldn't even put in the trial. Things that they couldn't put in the trial because of hearsay rules. He threatened to kill her if she was with anyone else. She was afraid that the next time that he hurt her it would be her death. That's why she put the things in her lockbox. She put the proof in her lockbox because of people like you who pretend like it's her fault it happened or who pretend like it wasn't there. She already knew that no one would believe her. She even told her friends that.

I know that if my husbands maid was helping him lie and cheat I would hate her. I would hate her. I would probably kick her ***. But, that is girl on girl. OJ was more powerful than Nicole. He could hurt her more than she could ever hurt him. He was one of the best football player ever. And, she ran. That's no comparison.

I also know that I tried to stand up to my abuser. I didn't just take what he dished out. But, the difference is that a "normal" fight would escalate to him hurting me. That would be when I didn't give in to his argument or I didn't do what he said. Did I push his buttons? I'm sure he'd say that I did. But, you know what? He would get a look in his eye. And, at that point I was scared of him. What escalated that fight? Because when given an option I chose the wrong one. Then I was lazy and a *****. Do I just keep my mouth shut when someone calls me a lazy ***** because I chose an easy meal to cook? No. I decide to leave. He wasn't going to let me. He hit me right in front of the kids. Just like OJ yelling at Nicole while the kids were asleep. At the moment that they are "freaking out" the kids don't matter. Later he cried and apologized. But, if I would of just cooked what he wanted then it wouldn't have happened. I guess I just pushed his buttons too far.

The biggest issue with the diary is that it is even there. She detailed the abuse. And, it was also backed up by her friends. I don't care what the family's reasons were. The prosecutors could have got their hands on it and used it. I also remember how pissed the family was for what Clark said about them and that she lied. So, why believe Clark and Darden? If you took up for the family why believe Clark and Darden? Clark was trying to defend herself in her book as to why she did such a crappy job. What do you think it means? What questions did you ask yourself about the diary?

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

This is VERY important. She called because she thought he was going to kill her. She even put that in her letter. She said that

"I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not."

http://walraven.org/simpson/nb-to-oj.html

And, this is a letter to OJ. You don't believe the diary? What about a letter TO OJ? You think she would make that up too?

AC also made Nicole tell the truth at the emergency room. Even AC knew.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

I truly don't understand the importance you place on Paula's message to OJ.

The DA's were desperate for a "trigger" for the murders. I don't remember the Paula Message Debate was brought up in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, the DA's just played it like OJ was mad at Nicole and when he couldn't get hold of Paula, he figured he had enough time to do the whacko hacko on Nicole (and anybody else for that matter) and make it back in plenty of time for his plane.

And if Paula left a message that she may be going out of town, what does that tell you? Maybe Paula left more then one message.

Think about it, she leaves this long message early in the morning, so early in fact that she knows exactly where OJ should be on the golf course. Now if she knew what fairway he would be on when she made the phone call, what are the chances she knew what time he would be back in his car and get her message?

Do you ever think that maybe Paula was a tad pissed off, that she left another message about going out of town?

And don't you think Paula was tad pissed off that before the love of her life mentioned her in his letter, that he talked about his first wife and his love for Nicole and that Paula was "special"?

And how do you think Paula felt when Gretchen Stockdale testified and when Kato testified about Tracy O'dell? I don't consider myself to be a jealous person, but I do have some pride. Again the NG's tout stuff that is not in evidence and didn't happen.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 10:07 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
". . . then he should have blown his head off . . . ." The first of your post is BS -- but I'll drink to this.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 10:30 AM

*snipped*Originally posted by limakey
The fact that you insist on keeping blinders on this subject is why all your other points are not accepted by NG's. You can't see the reality of their lies and why because of these lies, anything they have to say now means nothing. They lied about issues that, if they were on the up and up, never needed to be said.
IMO. I don't think there is a need to address the rest of your post since you continue to twist and turn the evidence to fit your vision OJ. Now, disregard the search warrant. How did OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprint, hair, Bronco fiber get to the murder scene if OJ didn't do it?

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

would you call a staring role in ROOTS a joke of a acting career?? A starring role? Please.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

In all fairness, Martin did say a "staring" role :D Oh well, that's more like it. ;)

alien

05-01-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The fact is that Vannatter and Lange were following orders that Commander Bushey first asked Phillips to do. To notify Simpson in person of the death of his ex wife and help him recover his children. That's the only reason the detectives went to Rockingham that night.

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

September 19, 1995

MR. SHAPIRO: "Did you have any notion at all that time that--"Answer: I didn't know who the suspect was. Anybody could have been a suspect at that point."
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Did you give those answers?
DET. VANNATTER: Yes, I gave those answers.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any doubt in your mind that you conveyed to the jury under oath that when you went to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was not a suspect?
DET. VANNATTER: There is no doubt in my mind. Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect at that point than you were, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony before the grand jury under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony at the preliminary hearing under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct, yes.

bobaugust

Isn't it amazing how people can sink their teeth into one thing said and repeat and repeat it to make someone look like a liar. Jeez, I got right away what Vannatter was talking about. And why would LE think of OJ as a suspect other than the norm of looking at the spouse. IMO, it is just another way for the NG's to point a figure and yell, frame up.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by alien

Isn't it amazing how people can sink their teeth into one thing said and repeat and repeat it to make someone look like a liar. Jeez, I got right away what Vannatter was talking about. And why would LE think of OJ as a suspect other than the norm of looking at the spouse. IMO, it is just another way for the NG's to point a figure and yell, frame up. LOL -- ain't that the truth. I can't get the NGs to answer how OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the murder scene if OJ didn't take it there. Not sure what Fuhrman being a racist (Not) or Vannatter being a liar (Not) has to do with that evidence.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo
Tazzy,

I agree with what you say. A very well known women's activist wrote several articles during the Simpson trial. Here are some bits and pieces:

"You won't ever know the worst that happened to Nicole Brown Simpson in her marriage, because she is dead and cannot tell you. And if she were alive, remember, you wouldn't believe her."

...

"Remember the video showing Simpson, after the ballet recital, with the Brown family--introduced by the defense to show Simpson's pleasant demeanor. Hours later, Nicole Simpson was dead. In the video, she is as far from Simpson, physically, as she can manage. He does not nod or gesture to her. He kisses her mother, embraces and kisses her sister and bear-hugs her father. They all reciprocate. She must have been the loneliest woman in the world."

...

"What would Nicole Simpson have had to do to be safe? With this abuser's wealth and power, a dream team of lawyers would have taken her children from her. She would have been the villain--reckless, a s l ut, reviled for muddying the character of a hero. If his abuse of her is of no consequence now that she's been murdered, how irrelevant would it have been as she, resourceless, tried to make a court and the public understand she needed to fear for her life?"

...

"On the same day the police who beat Rodney G. King were acquitted in Simi Valley, a white husband who had raped, beaten, and tortured his wife, also white, was acquitted of marital rape in South Carolina. He had kept her tied to a bed for hours, her mouth gagged with adhesive tape. He videotaped a half hour of her ordeal, during which he cut her breasts with a knife. The jury, which saw the videotape, had eight women on it. Asked why they acquitted, they said he needed help. They looked right through the victim. There were no riots afterward."

...

"We blame Nicole, as the batterer did. We ask why she stayed, though we, of course, were not prepared to stand between her and the batterer so that she could leave. And if, after she is dead, we tell the police that we heard the accused murderer beat her in 1977, and saw her with black eyes--as Nicole's neighbors did--we will not be allowed to testify, which may be the only justice in this, since it has taken us 17 years to bother to speak at all. I was a battered wife; I had such neighbors."

There's alot more, but these points jump out at me.

Wow, I was so affected by these excerpts that I found the articles in their entirety. Thank you for leading me to these.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Wow, I was so affected by these excerpts that I found the articles in their entirety. Thank you for leading me to these. Do you have a link to the articles?

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 12:04 PM

There was a posting several pages back in regard to how Nicole's diary should be questioned because of the Brown's reaction to it.

I think the Brown family is a classic case of not wanting to see the reality and severity of a situation because you've got too much invested in it that you don't want to lose. OJ controlled the Brown family financially and they took every cent that he ever offered, even if it meant turning a blind eye to what they may have suspected their daughter/sister was suffering through.

Because of this, I tend to look down on the Browns.

Then I realize that I too was hesitant to understand the violence that occurred in the Simpsons' relationship simply because I wasn't very educated on the issue at hand. I had never been abused and didn't, to my knowledge, know anyone that was abused.

I ended up having to research deep into domestic violence for one of my major college courses. I was stunned at the things I learned. One of the biggest things I learned is that it's hard to truly understand the nature of domestic violence because the reality of a batterer and the abused is far different from the reality of a non-violent relationship or person.

What seems logical to us means nothing in the abusive relationship.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Do you have a link to the articles? http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

In scrolling toward the bottom you will find a series of articles regarding Nicole Brown.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

In scrolling toward the bottom you will find a series of articles regarding Nicole Brown. Thank you Kate.

alien

05-01-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- ain't that the truth. I can't get the NGs to answer how OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the murder scene if OJ didn't take it there. Not sure what Fuhrman being a racist (Not) or Vannatter being a liar (Not) has to do with that evidence.

I have been on every board that talks about OJ because I am obsessed with the case and the fact that he got away with it. I am always looking for anything that could possibly make me change my mind about his guilt. Know what?? Ain't seen it yet (forgive my bad use of the English language :) )

I myself have asked several of them to give me one little thing (give me a fricking bone :) ) but I have never received a straight answer. It seems all they do is try to point out the good things about OJ, blame Nicole, blame LE and holler about a frame-up. I would just like to see one little tid bit that would make me go HMMM!!!. But like I said before, I ain't seen it yet.

I am so not a closed minded person and would look at anything they gave me to disprove the evidence that is so out there. All I see is the overwhelming evidence that tells me OJ did it.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 01:57 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by alien

I have been on every board that talks about OJ because I am obsessed with the case and the fact that he got away with it. I am always looking for anything that could possibly make me change my mind about his guilt. Know what?? Ain't seen it yet (forgive my bad use of the English language :) ) I guess all of us that visit/post this board are a little obsessed with this case. The NGs can't give you anything that points to anyone else because OJ has been proven beyond all doubt to be the murderer. Whether Fuhrman is racist, Vannatter lied to get the search warrant, Fung was incompetent -- nothing changes OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair, Bronco fiber being at the scene of the murders.

I said a while back that the only mind I'd seen changed was mine. I had always thought OJ "blew-up" maybe and committed the murders in a rage. I have been convinced by the evidence that he knew he was going to murder her and went there with that intention.

alien

05-01-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
There was a posting several pages back in regard to how Nicole's diary should be questioned because of the Brown's reaction to it.

I think the Brown family is a classic case of not wanting to see the reality and severity of a situation because you've got too much invested in it that you don't want to lose. OJ controlled the Brown family financially and they took every cent that he ever offered, even if it meant turning a blind eye to what they may have suspected their daughter/sister was suffering through.

Because of this, I tend to look down on the Browns.

Then I realize that I too was hesitant to understand the violence that occurred in the Simpsons' relationship simply because I wasn't very educated on the issue at hand. I had never been abused and didn't, to my knowledge, know anyone that was abused.

I ended up having to research deep into domestic violence for one of my major college courses. I was stunned at the things I learned. One of the biggest things I learned is that it's hard to truly understand the nature of domestic violence because the reality of a batterer and the abused is far different from the reality of a non-violent relationship or person.

What seems logical to us means nothing in the abusive
relationship.

Kate, I am so glad that you did research on the subject of DV. It is the best thing to make people aware of what it is all about. I posted previously that I was a victim of DV in my first and second marriage. The first one was all about emotional abuse and the second was about physical abuse. I would never be able to explain to anyone who never went through what I did to ever try and understand why I would have stayed 1 day after the abuse occured. And a lot of people can't wrap their minds around emotional abuse. There are no outward signs to show the abuse. However, IMO, emotional abuse is actually harder to overcome. I was able to get rid of the bruises from the physical abuse, but the internal scars of emontional abuse took a very long time to heal. For years I thought truly that I was fat, dumb, ugly etc. That no man would ever want me blah blah blah....My self esteem had hit rock bottom. Unfortunately I went into my third marriage with the attitude that "no man would ever do that to me again" and it didn't happen. However, I was such a hard a** b***ch that I didn't give my husband at the time any leeway. I mean, I wasn't an unloving person who treated him like crap, I just had very low tolerance. My third husband actually was a wonderful person, but he developed a drinking problem that caused issues for my children. At that point I told him he had to leave. To this day I always pray that he will find happiness because he deserves it.

Thank God, he gave me the strength to find myself, my self confidence and self esteem. When Mr Alien came along, I was cleansed of all the bad things in my mind. And he is a wonderful man who just treats me so wonderfully.

Can you explain to me about the Brown's reactions to Nicole's abuse. I am not familiar with that issue. I know that Denise Brown testified to the abuse, but what about her parents.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by alien

Can you explain to me about the Brown's reactions to Nicole's abuse. I am not familiar with that issue. I know that Denise Brown testified to the abuse, but what about her parents.

Alien,

Bless you for having found your way through the darkness.

When Nicole was first murdered, the Browns went on national television and declared that Nicole was not a battered spouse.

Then, all of a sudden they had these instances of abuse to testify to. I thought to myself, how do you say she wasn't abused when you clearly witnessed incidents?

Denise said later that they weren't educated on what domestic violence really is and that they were in denial. They said that they came to understand that Nicole really was a battered woman based on all they had learned.

alien

05-01-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Alien,

Bless you for having found your way through the darkness.

When Nicole was first murdered, the Browns went on national television and declared that Nicole was not a battered spouse.

Then, all of a sudden they had these instances of abuse to testify to. I thought to myself, how do you say she wasn't abused when you clearly witnessed incidents?

Denise said later that they weren't educated on what domestic violence really is and that they were in denial. They said that they came to understand that Nicole really was a battered woman based on all they had learned.

Thank you Miss Kate.

The one part that I could understand would be if Nicole never told her family that she was abused. A lot of abused people will give all kinds of reasons to explain away the bruises. Educated Smeducated. Did they suddenly put 2 and 2 together after their education to testify that, yes, Nicole was abused. I suppose at the beginning the Browns knew that OJ was their meal ticket and they didn't want to alienate him, but when he was charged, they were going to do their part to have him found guilty.

I believe very much in the after life and that when people pass on they know what is going on around in the world they left behind. I wonder what poor Nicole must have felt knowing that her very own parents were saying she wasn't abused. And the friends that made money off her death. As my Irish ancestors would say, "she was probably spinning in her grave." The more I learn about OJ and Nicole, the more my heart cries for her. IMO, she was a young naive "girl" when she met OJ and him being the smooth talking fool that he was found the perfect person for his ego. IMO, he probably started out sweet talking her into his web and when she was caught, he started the emotional abuse. After convincing her that no one would ever want her, but him, he started with the physical abuse. I say this because that is exactly what I experienced.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 03:58 PM

In one of the books I read regarding this case, it was stated that both jury consultants identified the fact that black female jurors would not have sympathy for Nicole being abused because DV is not uncommon in that community......And, sure enough, after the trial one of the female jurors said she didn't know why that was even in this trial. Dumb broad thought it was about OJ.....stupid me thought it was about murder.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Clark did take her consultants advice.. Actually, she didn't. She thought she knew because she had always been able to get convictions with black female jurors and even thought of herself as one of their 'darlings' -- unfortunately, she was wrong.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 05:02 PM

I've always thought it was odd how "effected" Arnelle was by the murders. Wonder if it was because she realized that she had been an accomplice by doing some wash.

A: That, but my daughter was in sort of a bad way, my older daughter was in sort of a bad way, so I was a little concerned about her, too. Not a little. Just as much as concerned about her. I was pretty concerned about my older daughter, because when I spoke to her, she was in a bad way.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Could be because she was worried about being held accountable for some of the clean up, or it might have been just the realization that dear old Dad is a double murderer. That's got to be shocking.... Maybe it's just me -- I just think that for the woman who stole your dad from your mom and who brought such volatility to his life -- maybe she over reacted just a little? I know Jason said he had had a special relationship with Nicole -- has anyone heard the same about Arnelle and Nicole?

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

What if she did take the consultants advice? Then maybe we wouldn't have been blessed with the ignorance that served as jury for this trial.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I had heard about Jason being fond of Nicole, but never heard the same said about Arnelle.

Are you saying over reacted because you think she believes that Dad is innocent? Oh no -- I think the reaction came when she realized what he'd done.

fbgweezer

05-01-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Fuhrman wasn't a racist, he was preceived to be a racist because of his disability request and his voice on a tape audio! Not sure which post you snipped this from . . .

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

<snipped>

Bob: Can you just imagine the media circus that would have ensued if Vannatter stated to anybody that OJ Simpson was a suspect in the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Just a thought.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*snipped* I don't think there is a need to address the rest of your post since you continue to twist and turn the evidence to fit your vision OJ. Now, disregard the search warrant. How did OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprint, hair, Bronco fiber get to the murder scene if OJ didn't do it?

How many times have you asked this question and NEVER got an answer? I think that I have lost count.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

05-02-2006, 01:23 AM

Bob,

The reason why Shapiro hammered Vanatter about that is because he knew that not one single lawyer, regardless of which side of the isle they work, didn't believe it. Shapiro also knew that without doubt, that not one single jurors, regardless of race or gender was going to believe it.

And no matter how many times you say they were following the orders of Commander Bushey, that does make it true or even realistic. He was impeached on this issue, by two witnesses, who again think OJ Simpson is as guilty as hell.

There is no way you can convince a majority of Americans that they told the truth on this issue. It is simply a lie that they got caught and they never recovered from it.

You do realize you asking millions upon millions of people, to believe that four lead detectives with over a hundered years of experience between them, did not suspect OJ Simpson. That has no credibility and the jurors saw right through it. Especially the one who felt OJ Simpson did it but felt because of Vanatter's lies and Fuhrman, she felt she had no other choice but to vote not guilty. And this is the same juror who was a juror in another trial, where she was the lone holdout for a guilty verdict. She turned around the 11 other jurors for a conviction. And she is white Bob.

So unless you intend to prove that she was threatened or beaten up by the black jurors in this case to say those things about Vanatter and Fuhrman and that she really believed them, then I think this issue should be closed. You may continue to live in your dream world, but the jurors and several millions of other Americans are perfectly within their right to call Fuhrman and Vanatter what they are, liars. It was proven.

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:07 AM

Taz,

It is a sad fact in our country that in the majority of divorce cases, men always have had, continue to have and probably always will have an upper hand. Just look at the number of men who would rather quit their jobs then pay child support? Look at the number of men who will even go "underground" then rather support their children.

In regards to the relationship between OJ and Nicole, as I see it, both were abusive, both admitted that they were, both admitted that they made mistakes. I think when Nicole was confronted about her slapping Michelle, she said something like, "I knew it was wrong, but she just made me so mad!". The problem I have is that anything that Nicole did or say that was abusive either mentally or emotionally, she has been give an excuse for it, and the same excuse, no matter who it is worded by the G's, it all amounts to the same, "It wasn't her fault because OJ made her do it." I do not agree with that.

I know woman have been murdered because they burned the steak or it wasn't cooked to perfection. I know women have been murdered because the house wasn't as clean as it should have been. I know that women have been killed because the kids were screaming and couldn't get them to shut up. I know that woman have been killed because the lawn wasn't cut to the degree that pleased the master. However, there is no evidence of that type of abuse in the Simpson marriage.

What was proven is that OJ and Nicole had one physical altercation, both have been drinking, both have different versions of the events, OJ pleaded no contest, did his fine and community service and accepted full responsibility for Nicole's injuries. It was also proven that in 1993 that OJ and Nicole got into another verbal disagreement that esculated and the police were called. While you hear OJ ranting and raving, and Nicole's pleas to keep quiet because of the kids, there was no phsyical contact between them. It has also been proven that OJ knew what happend in 1989 was his fault, he made no excuses and he also said if ever layed a hand on her again he would rip the pre-nup agreement. He also said that he was told by the police if he ever touched her again, he was going to jail.

It is also proven that Nicole spoke about the one incident, she told AC, she told the cops that it was only that one time. While I understand that many, many women will lie to protect themselves and their children, I do not think it was proven that this was the case in the Simpson relationship.

You and others have posted about other 911 phone calls, yet there is not one shred of proof of them. Not one police officer, out of what, those alleged 30 phone calls, remembered responding to the Simpson home? Oh, there was one, that was Mark Fuhrman, he explained why he remembered the details, because it isn't every day that you get called to a celebrities' home.

While I understand the constant need to blame the DA's for the loss in this case, lets be real. They had millions and millions of dollars at their disposal for this case. They had dozens and dozens and dozens of lawyers working on this case. They had dozens of police investigators at their disposal for this case. They had dozens of other law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI at their disposal for this case, yet the jury came back in less then four hours with a total and solid rejection of the state's case.

To continue to say that Marcia Clark made a lot of mistakes is false. She was following orders from the DA and for each and every witness she didn't use, there had to much more to it then she just made a mistake. Not one G has ever explained why she rejected two eyewitnesses in this case. One may have crediblity issues, yet the other one didn't. So they just decided not use the second eyewitness? Come on Taz, there is much more to this story then we know about.

Yes, I have read the books from both sides, however, I don't expect either side to accept any responsibility for the loss. Petrocelli's book didn't do as well as you expected because he was the one who was hammered for saying that Arnelle was the one who helped OJ get away with murder, but he had no proof. And if it was any other person then OJ Simpson, then he would have gotten another civil trial because what was allowed in.

IMO, if OJ Simpson is the killer, this was not a routine domestic abuse case, the DA's didn't prove it. Even MF felt that it was wrong to use this as the motive. Marcia Clark, in her book, said that she was never for the motive in the first place, had to be talked into it, then felt bad that she ignored it, then after Denise Brown testified she realized that she was getting no where and dropped the motive. Well, why didn't she use the other witnesses who were not Nicole's sister or family members?

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:17 AM

IMO, I believe who ever killed Ron and Nicole knew the intimate details of the Simpson relationship. That who ever killed them ensured they wore items that could be linked to Simpson. I believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose. As for the hat, there was at least one other hat in Nicole's home that was identical to one found. While OJ Simpson was asked to try on the gloves, he was never asked to try on the hat because he has an exceptionally large head (and no jokes okay!) and the hair that was found inside it, could have come from another African American and there was something about dandruff.

I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. As much as Johnnie Cochran was laughed at about his demonstration in the courtroom, he proved his point, OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap is still OJ Simpson.

Marcia Clark in her closing arguements even told the jury why OJ didn't dump his gloves and other stuff in a dumpster, he was too famous to do that. So the question I have for her, well what if he still had his hat on, would that have concealed his fame?

I believe Mark Fuhrman and every other police person who responded from Bundy believed OJ did it. They had every reason to believe it, they knew where he was, knew when he left, knew that he didn't have much time to do clean up. There is no doubt in my mind that the police and the DA's were stunned and shocked that the bloody clothes, the bloody knife and the bloody shoes never surfaced. And please G's, save yourself from that truly unbelieveably funny statement that he threw the stuff out at the airport, in a normal trash can. That would have been picked up in no time. And for all the talk of the bags, it is clear that had OJ Simpson committed this murder, he would not be stupid enough to carry any bloody evidence back to LA. He knew the police were waiting for him, he knew he was a prime suspect and this was even before he talked Denise Brown and she accused him.

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:58 AM

I have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall. My best guess for the person(s) who did this was Mark Fuhrman. Even if you wipe away his race challenged past, he still responded to the Simpson's home in 1985, he still answered a call out and submitted a statement on this incident after the 1989 incident. While it was talked about and while Chris Darden says that the DA's were able to keep out Fuhrman's comments about Nicole, like he was her personal cop and that he saw her boob job unclose and personal, it never made into evidence. However, the fact that he responded in 1985, the fact that he responded to a call out after the 1989 incident, he had every reason and being the outstanding detective that Mr. August claims him to be, he knew that Simpson was a prime suspect.

Detective Fuhrman knew about the thumps Kato heard before the glove was found. If you read Clark's comments about the glove and what Fuhrman told her and showed her, it was his description and his description of the chain of events, that were used to explain how the glove got back there. That OJ Simpson ran into the AC unit and that caused him to drop the glove.

After he is told about the thumps, he brings Kato into the house, he tells the other detectives to talk to him, he goes back out and about 15 minutes later, he comes back and then escorts all three detectives, by themselves to see his prize, the glove. Now, MF tells us that he was concerned about the thumps because he thought the thumps were made by a person who had collasped back there, he didn't know if it was another victim or the actual perp, but his concern was someone was back there, injured. If that is the case, why even escort Kato back into the house? Why not tell him to wait while he checked it out? What did this person suddenly become less injured, less collapsed? What was Fuhrman's delay on checking on this possible injured victim or prep?

Why didn't he ever or any other cop or DA have Kato walk back there and give a demonstration on what he heard? At that time, the theory that the AC unit was the reason the gloved was dropped, would have been put to rest even before it was leaked.

Then we have Vanatter getting nailed with reckless disregard for the truth on the search warrant. Poor old Phil, he took one for the team but he called his old buddy Marcia and sure enough, they would get together with a story, that a judge would buy. I don't think they ever expected Ito to question it or write what he did about it, but that was okay, because it took the focus off of the glove.

Now, there was glove that was spotted on a wire, but not enough of it to even determine if it was human blood or not. But damn, what great eyes that caught that. However, what does this tell us? That the cops and the DA's knew that there had to be more evidence to prove that someone was back there and dropped the glove and they searched, searched and searched some more and found nothing. The only "evidence" they had were the thumps, but when you added up what Kato said about it and what Fuhrman said about it and where the glove was found, you came up with "glove planting 101". IMO.

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:20 AM

As you know, I think if OJ Simpson was the killer, he had help, I do not believe that one man could have done this and had to at least have help to get rid of the evidence. Now, what if the guy who helped Simpson clean up, thought it was good idea to toss the glove back there. Figured no goes back there, no one would ever find, etc. What does that prove, the glove was still put back there by someone one other then OJ Simpson.

Now we go onto the blood evidence at Bundy, we will skip over the blood on the backgate, because it was found weeks later. The jurors made it clear that the x-ray was very difficult to read because it was degraded. They could not tell for sure and they had nothing else to compare it to. The reason given for this was that the ac was broken in the evidence truck and the evidence was "cooked". But this was never proven. The ac unit in an evidence truck was broke for a long time, but it never affected any other blood degrations in any other case, so why fix it. Well why was Simpson's blood the only blood the broken ac unit had an affect on? When did the DA's prove this was the reason for this little problem of evidence?

The blood on the socks, we know the defense's theory and we know why the witness said he believed it was planted. It was Marcia Clark who conceded the witness was correct, except she said that the only way the blood could have gotten on that sock, where it was, if Nicole reached up, and with hand went under OJ's pant leg and grabbed his ankle or leg. Well, that kind of destroys the DA's timeline and the fact that Nicole was dead before she even hit the ground and what was OJ doing, bending over her?

And lets no forget that not only the blood on the socks was found much later, these were the most important piece of evidence the DA's had against OJ. They were inside his house, right then and there, the glove didn't matter, nothing else matter but those socks but it appears to me that they weren't given a second thought until the other evidence never appeared and there were problems with the glove.

So much of the DA's evidence is truly manna from heaven. It is a miracle that all those experts didn't see the blood on the socks, it was a miracle that the glove got behind the wall with no other trace evidence. It was a miracle that not one single fiber was found in OJ's home, in his cars.

It was a miracle that Kato knew (however, he was said he thought) what OJ was wearing, yet he got it totally wrong on what he was wearing to the airport. What is that Mr. August, it doesn't matter if he got it wrong, that what he wore to the Airport was irrelevant, well maybe in Bob August Land, it is irrelevent, but here on plant reality, it is very relevent.

And the fibers on the socks, well what happens when you store sections on the carpet and the socks in the same evidence bag? Is there some rule of behavior that prevents these items from bonding with one another? Of course, that was OJ's fault that they were packaged together, but then again, everything is his fault, isn't? Or Johnnie Cochran's.

And the shoes, okay, the pictures. Lets see, after the criminal verdict, the Goldmans' had several offers to have OJ killed. More the one person, they were mainly black, who wanted to kill OJ for him and his family. The Goldmans declined these kind offers, but if people were willing to kill OJ because of the verdict and felt so bad for the Goldmans', does this mean no one would fake a photo? Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem faking a photo in the civil trial, because one it is only money, two, I think the guy is guilty as hell, three, I cry everytime I look at the Goldmans', especially Kim but would I kill him for them, are you kidding me?

Every piece of evidence in the trial was challenged and the DA's had no response. It was their expert who said that no EDTA would be found in the samples and when it was, then they came up with the other explainations, which they claimed there were none before that. The DA's made up the rules of evidence as they went a long and they got caught.

All of this is MOO.

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:21 AM

SoCal,

You made your post before I was done---night, night!

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:26 AM

Alien,

OJ's mother was very relgious (my spelling is way off tonight). He was often quoted as saying that he was always taught by her, "do onto others as you have done on to you".

I read a story about famous people who have converted to be Catholics. They listed OJ Simpson as one when he married Nicole. I have never been able to find any more information on this. I do know that Nicole insisted that her children be raised in the faith and that OJ did follow her wishes on this.

He also made an interesting comment about Mrs. Brown. He said that Judy asked him not to re-marry and have another woman raise Sydney and Justin and he promised her this wouldn't happen. He says he wonders if it would have been better for the kids if had remarried but he felt obligated to keep his promise to Judy.

I'm think if I truly believed that my ex son in law killed my daughter, and he won custody of the kids, I would want another woman or another person there just to make sure that the kids were okay. But, to each his own.

2L8 4A D8

05-02-2006, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

While I understand the constant need to blame the DA's for the loss in this case, lets be real. They had millions and millions of dollars at their disposal for this case. They had dozens and dozens and dozens of lawyers working on this case. They had dozens of police investigators at their disposal for this case. They had dozens of other law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI at their disposal for this case, yet the jury came back in less then four hours with a total and solid rejection of the state's case.

<snipped>

Limakey: Even if the DA's brought in Jesus Christ himself to testify, this Jury was not about to convict OJ under any circumstances.

IIRC, didn't one of the Jurors state that they didn't understand the DNA evidence, so they just discounted it and threw it out? You have no problem with that? That doesn't bother you?

The Jury took only 4 hours to render a not guilty verdict in a double murder case. Again, you have no problem with that? That doesn't bother you? Heck, I spent over 5+ days as a Juror on a Malicious Prosecution case! After only 4 hours of deliberations and throwing out all of the DNA evidence and the NG's just can't understand what the big fuss is about? GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Bob,

The reason why Shapiro hammered Vanatter about that is because he knew that not one single lawyer, regardless of which side of the isle they work, didn't believe it. Shapiro also knew that without doubt, that not one single jurors, regardless of race or gender was going to believe it.

And no matter how many times you say they were following the orders of Commander Bushey, that does make it true or even realistic. He was impeached on this issue, by two witnesses, who again think OJ Simpson is as guilty as hell.

limakey, no matter how many police officers testified that it was Commander Bushey's order to notify Simpson in person, you still refuse to believe it. For someone who was in the military you seem to be very ignorant about how a chain of command works. Commander Bushey testified that his order was proper police procedure.

All you do is argue about what you think Vannatter thought. Thoughts are not lies. You or anyone else can call Vannatter a liar all you want but that doesn't make it true. No one is convicted of lying based on what they're thinking, only on what they say they did. I don't care how many examples you give of what the criminal trial jurors supposedly thought. The fact is that Simpson was the killer no matter what excuses they may have given to justify their decision to acquit.

You seem to be playing dumb not being able to understand the difference between a potential suspect and an actual suspect.

Vannatter was never impeached about any fact he ever testified to in this case.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

05-02-2006, 08:04 AM

Limakey,

You are so wrong about the abuse. And, the two calls (89 & 93) to 911 are not the only abuse we have. There are witnesses to him hitting her other than these two calls. She had written notes in the margin of a book as to the way their relationship matched the book and the things he had done to her. There is her diary. There are the pictures of her. There are the many witnesses who SAW him hit her. The man on the beach, the woman at the vet's office, the neighbors who saw her bruises after hearing them fight, the call to the shelter. He smashed up her car. The doctor that was consulting him while he was in jail said that he was a batterer and Nicole was battered.

This is why I say you have shades on. You pretend like all of that is not there. Or, you dismiss it as everyone is lying but OJ. You don't even mention any of that.

This is exactly why I say the DA's (Clark, Darden) screwed up. They did not follow thru with the abuse issue. That is a screw up. They didn't follow thru. However, the civil trial did. The civil trial showed that OJ was a killer without any doubt. I believe that OJ and Nicole fought on the phone that night and she pissed him off good. And, I don't think he had the cap for a disguise. That's rediculous. I think he had it (just like the gloves) to try to keep evidence of himself being the killer to zip. The defense did nothing but lie to try and get a killer out free. Just like Cochran saying that OJ did not hear the message from Paula. That was a lie because Simpson already admitted to Lange and Vannatter that he did. But, they couldn't bring that into the criminal trial. That's how the DA's screwed up.

So, for you to say it's not fair that I keep saying they screwed up...you are wrong. They did screw up. The civil trial made OJ have to finally answer for himself. And, that's when we saw what a liar he is. Not one little lie. Many big ones.

You are not taking into account the many many many many many different things that prove his guilt.

Remember his lies? He was definately in the bronco at 10:03. He even told HIS therapist this. She made notes of it. He said in his interview with Vannatter and Lange that he HAD picked up Paula's message. (and this WAS talked about in the civil trial) His hands were NOT cut at the recital. He was cut after the recital. There was blood found in the drain in his bathroom. There was blood found on the wire behind the house. There was blood found on the air conditioner behind the house. There were blood drops from the bronco to the house and then inside the house. He was bleeding pretty good before he left for Chicago. A small papercut would not bleed like that. Another lie. Rediculous.

And, Vannatter was NOT impeached. They only suggested it. That is also NOTHING that would change the fact that OJ killed his ex-wife and her friend. I don't care who you don't trust. OJ didn't have to lie if he didn't do it.

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by limakey
IMO, I believe who ever killed Ron and Nicole knew the intimate details of the Simpson relationship. That who ever killed them ensured they wore items that could be linked to Simpson. I believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose. As for the hat, there was at least one other hat in Nicole's home that was identical to one found. While OJ Simpson was asked to try on the gloves, he was never asked to try on the hat because he has an exceptionally large head (and no jokes okay!) and the hair that was found inside it, could have come from another African American and there was something about dandruff.

I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. As much as Johnnie Cochran was laughed at about his demonstration in the courtroom, he proved his point, OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap is still OJ Simpson.

limakey, it amazes me how gullible and naive you are when it comes to understanding the clothing that Simpson wore that night when he committed the murders. Again for someone who claims they were in the military, based on your statements you must have slept through all of your camouflage and concealment classes.

Simpson wore all dark clothing for concealment in the dark shadows at Nicole's house, just like he learned when making the movie Frogman. He wore gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints. Most people understand that. Johnnie Cochran's ridiculous demonstration of wearing the knit hat on his head, which was noticeably too big for him, didn't prove anything. Of course if Simpson was wearing that hat in court under lights it would still be Simpson. But when he wore it at night in the dark any witness who had seen a large man dressed in all dark clothing on the dark walkway at Bundy would not have been able to identify that person as O.J. Simpson. No witness could have made a positive identification, not being able to tell what kind of hair if any the man had or any other distinguishing features.

There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff at the time of the murders.

I have no idea what you base your belief on that the police were stunned that they didn't find the bloody knife or the bloody shoes. That's completely ridiculous. If they had actually found the murder weapon or the shoes that would have stunned them. They did find the murder clothing but never even realized it. When they later learned that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get it. But it was too late, it was gone.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by limakey
I have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall. My best guess for the person(s) who did this was Mark Fuhrman. Even if you wipe away his race challenged past, he still responded to the Simpson's home in 1985, he still answered a call out and submitted a statement on this incident after the 1989 incident. While it was talked about and while Chris Darden says that the DA's were able to keep out Fuhrman's comments about Nicole, like he was her personal cop and that he saw her boob job unclose and personal, it never made into evidence. However, the fact that he responded in 1985, the fact that he responded to a call out after the 1989 incident, he had every reason and being the outstanding detective that Mr. August claims him to be, he knew that Simpson was a prime suspect.

Detective Fuhrman knew about the thumps Kato heard before the glove was found. If you read Clark's comments about the glove and what Fuhrman told her and showed her, it was his description and his description of the chain of events, that were used to explain how the glove got back there. That OJ Simpson ran into the AC unit and that caused him to drop the glove.

After he is told about the thumps, he brings Kato into the house, he tells the other detectives to talk to him, he goes back out and about 15 minutes later, he comes back and then escorts all three detectives, by themselves to see his prize, the glove. Now, MF tells us that he was concerned about the thumps because he thought the thumps were made by a person who had collasped back there, he didn't know if it was another victim or the actual perp, but his concern was someone was back there, injured. If that is the case, why even escort Kato back into the house? Why not tell him to wait while he checked it out? What did this person suddenly become less injured, less collapsed? What was Fuhrman's delay on checking on this possible injured victim or prep?

Why didn't he ever or any other cop or DA have Kato walk back there and give a demonstration on what he heard? At that time, the theory that the AC unit was the reason the gloved was dropped, would have been put to rest even before it was leaked.

Then we have Vanatter getting nailed with reckless disregard for the truth on the search warrant. Poor old Phil, he took one for the team but he called his old buddy Marcia and sure enough, they would get together with a story, that a judge would buy. I don't think they ever expected Ito to question it or write what he did about it, but that was okay, because it took the focus off of the glove.

Now, there was glove that was spotted on a wire, but not enough of it to even determine if it was human blood or not. But damn, what great eyes that caught that. However, what does this tell us? That the cops and the DA's knew that there had to be more evidence to prove that someone was back there and dropped the glove and they searched, searched and searched some more and found nothing. The only "evidence" they had were the thumps, but when you added up what Kato said about it and what Fuhrman said about it and where the glove was found, you came up with "glove planting 101". IMO.

limakey, you say you have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall?

You know no such thing, you fantasize that it was planted. You can't name one single piece of legitimate evidence that supports that claim. All of the known evidence contradicts your false claim. Logic and common sense contradicts your false claim.

You keep referring to Clark's and Fuhrman's comments. Their comments are not evidence and they were wrong. Just as you are wrong.

No, it wasn't a miracle where fiber evidence was found and not found, just reality. All of the fiber evidence found in this case was found only on fabrics.

Your confused. There was no carpet fibers on the socks there were only blue black cotton fibers from Simpson's clothing. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's right hand glove. Those items were not packaged with the socks.

There were three different photographers who took photographs of Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that the killer wore when he wore them nine months before the murders on September 26, 1993. Over thirty photographs and negatives were examined by experts and all were found to be authentic. One of these photographs was even published in a weekly newsletter in November 1993 showing Simpson wearing the exact same shoes the killer wore.

The claim that these photographs were fake is a bogus and false claim. There isn't one single piece of legitimate evidence to support it. Just another excuse used by people who either refuse or are not capable of accepting the simple truth of these murders.

Based on the your comments you would have flunked Glove Planting 101 just like you flunked basic camouflage and concealment.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Now we go onto the blood evidence at Bundy, we will skip over the blood on the backgate, because it was found weeks later. The jurors made it clear that the x-ray was very difficult to read because it was degraded. They could not tell for sure and they had nothing else to compare it to. The reason given for this was that the ac was broken in the evidence truck and the evidence was "cooked". But this was never proven. The ac unit in an evidence truck was broke for a long time, but it never affected any other blood degrations in any other case, so why fix it. Well why was Simpson's blood the only blood the broken ac unit had an affect on? When did the DA's prove this was the reason for this little problem of evidence?

The blood on the socks, we know the defense's theory and we know why the witness said he believed it was planted. It was Marcia Clark who conceded the witness was correct, except she said that the only way the blood could have gotten on that sock, where it was, if Nicole reached up, and with hand went under OJ's pant leg and grabbed his ankle or leg. Well, that kind of destroys the DA's timeline and the fact that Nicole was dead before she even hit the ground and what was OJ doing, bending over her?

And lets no forget that not only the blood on the socks was found much later, these were the most important piece of evidence the DA's had against OJ. They were inside his house, right then and there, the glove didn't matter, nothing else matter but those socks but it appears to me that they weren't given a second thought until the other evidence never appeared and there were problems with the glove.

So much of the DA's evidence is truly manna from heaven. It is a miracle that all those experts didn't see the blood on the socks, it was a miracle that the glove got behind the wall with no other trace evidence. It was a miracle that not one single fiber was found in OJ's home, in his cars.

It was a miracle that Kato knew (however, he was said he thought) what OJ was wearing, yet he got it totally wrong on what he was wearing to the airport. What is that Mr. August, it doesn't matter if he got it wrong, that what he wore to the Airport was irrelevant, well maybe in Bob August Land, it is irrelevent, but here on plant reality, it is very relevent.

And the fibers on the socks, well what happens when you store sections on the carpet and the socks in the same evidence bag? Is there some rule of behavior that prevents these items from bonding with one another? Of course, that was OJ's fault that they were packaged together, but then again, everything is his fault, isn't? Or Johnnie Cochran's.

And the shoes, okay, the pictures. Lets see, after the criminal verdict, the Goldmans' had several offers to have OJ killed. More the one person, they were mainly black, who wanted to kill OJ for him and his family. The Goldmans declined these kind offers, but if people were willing to kill OJ because of the verdict and felt so bad for the Goldmans', does this mean no one would fake a photo? Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem faking a photo in the civil trial, because one it is only money, two, I think the guy is guilty as hell, three, I cry everytime I look at the Goldmans', especially Kim but would I kill him for them, are you kidding me?

Limakey, it was proved that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock and Simpson's blood on the rear gate were NOT planted from Nicole's autopsy sample or Simpson's reference sample.

Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock did not contain EDTA preserved blood. It was also less degraded than the blood in her autopsy sample proving that it was not planted. Nicole didn't reach up and grab Simpson's ankle. Nicole's fresh blood probably splashed on Simpson's socks when he walked through her pooling blood.

Simpson's blood on the rear gate did not contain EDTA preserved blood. A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate that the defense claimed was planted. After that photograph was entered into evidence in the criminal trial Simpson's defense never made that false claim again. Only uninformed people or people who can't understand realty continue to claim blood was planted.

You've got things backwards. The clothing that Simpson wore to the airport is irrelevant. The clothing he was wearing before the murders was what was relevant to the murders.

No, it wasn't a miracle where fiber evidence was found and not found, just reality. All of the fiber evidence found in this case was found only on fabrics.

Your confused. There was no carpet fibers on the socks there were only blue black cotton fibers from Simpson's clothing. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's right hand glove. Those items were not packaged with the socks.

There were three different photographers who took photographs of Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that the killer wore when he wore them nine months before the murders on September 26, 1993. Over thirty photographs and negatives were examined by experts and all were found to be authentic. One of these photographs was even published in a weekly newsletter in November 1993 showing Simpson wearing the exact same shoes the killer wore.

The claim that these photographs were fake is a bogus and false claim. There isn't one single piece of legitimate evidence to support it. Just another excuse used by people who either refuse or are not capable of accepting the simple truth of these murders.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

05-02-2006, 08:34 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
So unless you intend to prove that she was threatened or beaten up by the black jurors in this case to say those things about Vanatter and Fuhrman and that she really believed them, then I think this issue should be closed. You may continue to live in your dream world, but the jurors and several millions of other Americans are perfectly within their right to call Fuhrman and Vanatter what they are, liars. It was proven. Shapiro hammered Vannatter on the search warrant details because the defense had NO other argument. I do not believe Vannatter lied -- it was proven to be blood on the Bronco and the maid was suppose to be in the house.

As far as the 'white' juror who also voted to release the murderer, you need to do a little more research. IIRC, she stated that because there was such animosity among the jurors, she wanted it over. She along with the other jurors did not do their sworn duty. They did not consider the evidence of the case and released a double murderer back into society.

You can continue to live in your dream world but until you, the several million and the jury can say how Orenthal's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the scene of the murder without OJ carrying them there, then you cannot make a case for his innocence.

fbgweezer

05-02-2006, 08:47 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. Absolutely unbelieveabele that a thinking person can take the evidence in this case, then twist it and turn to fit their outrageous theory.

No one but Orenthal was at the murder scene -- Proven. No one but Orenthal wanted Nicole dead -- Proven. Any other peripheral involvement by LE or anyone else is exactly that -- peripheral.

BTW, I'm still hoping for an answer to my inquiries as to how Orenthal's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair, Bronco fiber got to the scene if he wasn't the one that took it there.

fbgweezer

05-02-2006, 09:09 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
I'm think if I truly believed that my ex son in law killed my daughter, and he won custody of the kids, I would want another woman or another person there just to make sure that the kids were okay. But, to each his own. I don't mean to be rude but you present a twisted sense of argument. The Brown's do truly believe that Orenthal murdered Nicole. They fought for custody of the children to keep them away from him. Unfortunately, Orenthal won custody and as we have seen, that has not been without incident between him and the kids -- or at least Sydney. I doubt very seriously that Juditha Brown asked Orenthal not to remarry and so he didn't. Orenthal was/is a man-*****......I think a deeper question would be why he was. Doesn't say much for his character. Not that I think a philanderer goes on to become a murderer. But I do believe that an abuser can and does. Orenthal was both.

Your posts more often than not hold Orenthal up as some kind of hero while you denigrate Nicole. He is just a human who was a lousy husband (twice) and has been proven to be an abuser and a murderer.

As far as the rest of your comments about Fuhrman, Vannatter, planted gloves and blood -- wrong. Besides spouting the dream team mantra, you cannot provide any credible proof whatsoever that any of this is true. In fact, you are posting stuff that has been proven to you and other NGs on this board to be wrong. IMO, it is dishonest of you to continue to post such fantasies.

MOO