What did you think about last nite's show...OJ [Archive]

LushLife

08-08-2006, 05:59 PM

Here's my opinion...the same videos were shown too many times. I truly admire Nancy's spunk! I WISH OJ called in...I watched the trial ....to me no matter how much evidence there was that appeared to be against him...imo...in my heart I hoped he'd prove his innocence...in my heart...he didn't. I WANTED to beleive him but...the last guest asked a question that was on my mind...if OJ TRULY wanted to see justice done....why pit himself against the Goldman's and the Browns? It makes NO SENSE...IMO. Sydney's call to 911 broke my heart. IMO...if OJ were trying to improve his image, he wouldn't appear at Horror shows or sleazy videos...imo...he's had many opportunities to improve his image and he's made the wrong choices at every turn.

White Dove

08-08-2006, 09:27 PM

I didn't care for the show on OJ. I wished she had
covered something else.

jotun

08-14-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by LushLife
Here's my opinion...the same videos were shown too many times. I WISH OJ called in...I watched the trial ....to me no matter how much evidence there was that appeared to be against him...imo...in my heart I hoped he'd prove his innocence...in my heart...he didn't. I WANTED to beleive him but...the last guest asked a question that was on my mind...if OJ TRULY wanted to see justice done....why pit himself against the Goldman's and the Browns? It makes NO SENSE...

Lushlife
I watched every minute of the 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY"
O.J. IS INNOCENT!!!!!

Why would O.J. call that nasty blond from Alanta?
Who screams guilty even tho O.J.was aquitted.THAT doesn't seem to matter to her or anyone in the media.
O.J. can't PROVE his innocence nor does he have to. A defendant is "presumed innocent". After all the cover-up & LIES by the LAPD & DA's it is NOW almost impossible to do. Before any charges were even filed O.J. hired Drs Baden & Henry Lee to work with the LAPD to SOLVE the crime. They refused their help!!!!!! O.J. has had detectives working on leads for all these 12 years.There are some interesting theories and suspects.But as O.J.says 'the answer lies in the world of Faye Resnick'
DRUGS! F.Lee is still in charge.

It makes total sence.
O.J. did want to see justice done. It was done. O.J. was found NOT GUILTY.

O.J. did NOT pit himself against the Browns & Goldmans. They did that by THEIR civil-suit. He doesn't say things against them. But they continue to call him a killer.Those phone-records could PROVE O.J. IS INNOCENT!!
Browns refuse to release them. WHY????????
jotun

jantheman

08-14-2006, 11:38 PM

Lynne

08-15-2006, 12:18 AM

I had forgotten how nauseated I feel at the sight and sound of Orenthal J. Simpson

jantheman

08-16-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You're just itchin' to go to the OJ forum, I know it! :D It's 12 yrs later & I still despise that wife beating, double murdering, cable stealing, road raging freak :flamemad: sometimes i watch documentaries on it like it might be like the movie "groundhogsday" and the verdict will be different lol.

Thinking

08-16-2006, 06:41 PM

Face it folks, Nancy Grace will show silly programs against OJ until he or she dies. She will do the same with Scott Peterson.
She will do the same with Gary Condutt.
She will do the same with Joran, in Aruba.
She will do the same with John Ramsey, (even though they have just arrested the murderer of JonBenet.)
Did anyone of reasonable intelligence expect anything better?
I think in the end, she will probably get married to Geraldo and they will go off happily to look for Jimmy Hoffa.

:lol:

limakey

08-16-2006, 11:42 PM

Thinking,

I loved your post! Very well put and I got it. Good job!

tazzybaby

08-17-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by jotun

*snip*

But as O.J.says 'the answer lies in the world of Faye Resnick'
DRUGS!

*snip*

Those phone-records could PROVE O.J. IS INNOCENT!!
Browns refuse to release them. WHY????????
jotun

Hi jotun,

No one believes OJ. He is a liar. He was in a world of drugs himself. In his own words .... he was doing what everyone else was doing (in regards to drugs). There is nothing that he could ever say that I would believe. I will always have to have back up for anything that he says. He's a liar.

Those phone records are a joke. It has already been proven the time of the call. That's why nothing came of the "phone records" issue.

:read:

Thinking

08-17-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Either you are seriously misinformed, or you choose to make stuff up. OJ DID NOT hire Henry Lee & Baden prior to the crime to SOLVE the crime. The only people he hired were to save his sorry self from prison. OJ has NOT had detectives working on leads for 12 yrs. Do you really think he's stupid enough to pay dectectives for work that would only implicate HIMSELF?

You are confused on the phone records also. There is nothing to prove that OJ isn't the murderer. As I recall, even the "dream team" stipulated as to the records presented by the Prosecution. :no:

I did LOVE seeing Orenthal waiting for the bus on those recently released videos. It seems none of the bus drivers would pick his double murdering sorry backside up. How fitting. :lol:

JOTUN = OJNUT?

socaldiva,
Of course, your take on this is merely your own speculation, isn't it? Maybe even wishful thinking?
You have NO idea if OJ has detectives working on anything at all. Would he TELL everyone if he did? So the media and police could work against it? Do you think he would trust the media OR the police?
You have NO idea exactly what OJ actually hired Baden and Lee for. You were not privy to any conversations between them. Besides, they are experts in their fields and you cannot make them lie about anything. You cannot assume that the media and yourself know whatever goes on behind closed doors, can you?
You have NO idea what is in any phone records if they were not public info at the time of the trial, do you? So if there's nothing there. Why don't the Browns and the Goldmans let it all out?
So exactly WHO is making stuff up?
Just preface your remarks by saying it is your OPINION, SPECULATION, or WISH that this is how it was.
If you can't do that, then don't make stuff up. Please.

:beer:

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Thinking

You have NO idea what is in any phone records if they were not public info at the time of the trial, do you? So if there's nothing there. Why don't the Browns and the Goldmans let it all out?

Thinking, you're wrong about the telephone records. We do know what was on them.

They were presented in court and given to Simpson's defense team who examined them and checked them out.
A enlarged copy of the telephone records was used as a prosecution exhibit in the criminal trial and the defense stipulated that the times depicted on on those records were accurate.

The defense stipulated that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM.
The defense stipulated that Juditha Brown called Nicole at 9:40 PM and that was the last time Juditha Brown ever spoke with Nicole.

That is the undisputed evidence in this case.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call that some people want to so desperately believe. The fact is that not one of Simpson's attorneys from either trial ever supported the frivolous law suit trying to obtain the telephone records or ever said anything that supported that fictitious telephone call.

These telephone records have nothing to do with the Goldman's. The Brown's evidently refuse to dignify this ridiculous fictitious claim with any response just as none of Simpson's attorneys will do.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

08-19-2006, 10:20 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by Thinking
You have NO idea exactly what OJ actually hired Baden and Lee for. Petrocelli, Triumph of Justice; p 125: "Who was with Simpson the morning of June 17, before he bolted? I ran down the guest list and asked about each name. Bob Shapiro, Simpson's lead attorney at the time, had put together a team of top-notch people with lightning speed. Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Henry Lee, both expert witnesses of considerable renown, were taking pictures and examining Simpson at the Kardashian home as the cabal was trying to figure out what the cops had on him. As well as performing for the accused killer, these preeminent forensic experts were now unavailable to be hired by the prosecutors."

Simpsonese

08-19-2006, 10:50 PM

Nothing wrong with the Juice, he is what he is. A spoiled rich man, that has no care for the poor. That is something he is REALLY guilty about. But the haters and Nancy "I have a victom's persecution complex" Grace and those types can never understand.

Levi90

08-20-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Thinking
Face it folks, Nancy Grace will show silly programs against OJ until he or she dies. She will do the same with Scott Peterson.
She will do the same with Gary Condutt.
She will do the same with Joran, in Aruba.
She will do the same with John Ramsey, (even though they have just arrested the murderer of JonBenet.)
Did anyone of reasonable intelligence expect anything better?
I think in the end, she will probably get married to Geraldo and they will go off happily to look for Jimmy Hoffa.

:lol: /
How can you say they captured the real murderer of JonBenet That is just wishful thinking. There is more evidence against Patsy & John Ramsey than there is against the nut they have in custody now! All we know is that he was obsessed with the murder & was obsessed with other murders of children as well. You are doing what you & others say Nancy does "rushing to judgement". Ramsey supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth! :rolleyes:

Simpsonese

08-20-2006, 07:51 PM

and if he isn't diva? Admit failure as a individual? Failure as a human being, that makes OJ's failure in society look pale?

Americ@nBe@utyX

08-21-2006, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

How fitting. :lol:

JOTUN = OJNUT?

LOL, that is funny!:D

fbgweezer

08-21-2006, 09:17 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by jotun
Lushlife
I watched every minute of the 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY"
O.J. IS INNOCENT!!!!! Can we assume you were watching from a Holiday Inn Express?

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Can we assume you were watching from a Holiday Inn Express?

Double Standard, huh?

Sunny Day

09-05-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by LushLife
Here's my opinion...the same videos were shown too many times. I truly admire Nancy's spunk! I WISH OJ called in...I watched the trial ....to me no matter how much evidence there was that appeared to be against him...imo...in my heart I hoped he'd prove his innocence...in my heart...he didn't. I WANTED to beleive him but...the last guest asked a question that was on my mind...if OJ TRULY wanted to see justice done....why pit himself against the Goldman's and the Browns? It makes NO SENSE...IMO. Sydney's call to 911 broke my heart. IMO...if OJ were trying to improve his image, he wouldn't appear at Horror shows or sleazy videos...imo...he's had many opportunities to improve his image and he's made the wrong choices at every turn.

My thoughts:

OJ is trying to convince people that he is still liked and adored by white people, so he wants to be seen with these trashy white girls because, in his mind, trashy whites are better than no whites at all.

He puts on a facade for the cameras by clowning and smiling and acting like he is happy, but I think, in his mind and soul, he feels his sickness and sees the blood on his hands that he can never wash off. And when he looks in the mirror, he knows he is looking at the murderer of his children's mother.

Also, on another subject, I believe Ron Goldman was going to meet Nicole for a rendevous. Nicole left the glasses on purpose to give him a reason to go to her house, that's why he went home and showered first.

OJ murdered out of sheer jealousy...not an uncommon crime at all.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-05-2006, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Levi90
/
How can you say they captured the real murderer of JonBenet That is just wishful thinking. There is more evidence against Patsy & John Ramsey than there is against the nut they have in custody now! All we know is that he was obsessed with the murder & was obsessed with other murders of children as well. You are doing what you & others say Nancy does "rushing to judgement". Ramsey supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth! :rolleyes:

No evidence that would satisfy YOU anyway.

She was found in the Ramsey's home, not Karr's.

The first officers on the scene who were with the Ramseys gave very revealing accounts, IMO.

Pedophiles do not leave ransom notes. The whole "kidnapping" and ransom note was a concoction to cover up her murder.

BTW, I heard the 9/11 call that Patsy made....she sounded like she was acting to me.

dandmb50

09-05-2006, 10:13 PM

Never really much followed the OJ trial but saw it tonight on Nancy Grace, was sad.

But reading the posts I wondered who this Orenthal was until I read a post that explained that was his first name. I'm so embarrassed I didn't even know him as that. Shameless, I should be sent to the office with NG.

Daniel..........Toronto

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Also, on another subject, I believe Ron Goldman was going to meet Nicole for a rendevous. Nicole left the glasses on purpose to give him a reason to go to her house, that's why he went home and showered first.

OJ murdered out of sheer jealousy...not an uncommon crime at all.

MO.

Sunny Day, Nicole didn't leave her mother's eyeglasses.

Juditha Brown testified that when they pulled up to the front of the restaurant, she had Justin in her lap and they must have fallen out when she got out of the car. Juditha Brown called the restaurant as soon as she got back home. She spoke with the manager of the restaurant who looked around the table where they sat but didn't see them. Juditha told her to check outside in the street and that's where they they were found. The manager said she would put then in an envelope and hold them. Juditha told her she was going to call her daughter to pick them up.

Juditha then called Nicole and told her about her eyeglasses being held at the restaurant. Nicole called the restaurant and spoke with Ron Goldman. Ron told her he was going out that night after work and that he'd drop them off.

I agree that jealousy was probably part of Simpson's reasons of why he went to Bundy that night.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-06-2006, 02:01 AM

I was out and about today and a tv set was turned on to Oprah. Chris Darden was on. I was trying to listen to what he was saying, but it was so noisy. I really, really wanted to hear what he had to say. It looks like Chris has put on a lot of weight. I don't know if this was a "brand new" thing or a "repeat." Does anyone know? Dayum, the one day that I just had to go out!

JMO and MOO!!

canUCme?

09-06-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You're just itchin' to go to the OJ forum, I know it! :D It's 12 yrs later & I still despise that wife beating, double murdering, cable stealing, road raging freak :flamemad:

socialdiva, you are sooooo right on with this!

I feel exactly the same way you do....just looking at his oily, smurking, nasty face makes me want to punch my fish right through the television.

And Oprah yesterday.....she just cashed in all her markers with me too. Even Darden looked at her like she'd flipped all of her extensions.

Ugh.....
"C"

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by canUCme?

socialdiva, you are sooooo right on with this!

I feel exactly the same way you do....just looking at his oily, smurking, nasty face makes me want to punch my fish right through the television.

And Oprah yesterday.....she just cashed in all her markers with me too. Even Darden looked at her like she'd flipped all of her extensions.

Ugh.....
"C"

What did Oprah do, and why was Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden on the show for?

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

What did Oprah do, and why was Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden on the show for?

nettathirty, funny. Some people could also call you netta "Brotherdict-Arnold" thirty based on your belief that Simpson is a liar and he was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Darden was a traitor for doing the job his office asked him to do? He should have refused to prosecute a case because the defendant was AA? What a joke. Darden is/was an honorable man. Unlike Orenthal.

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Thank you for that clarification. It always makes me crazy when people create scenarios out of their own overheated imaginations.

BTW, I watched that whole trial, every minute but the DNA (since I knew that they would prove, incontrovertibaly that the blood samples would be OJ's, and the comedy team of Clark and Darden never convinced me they had the right man. VanAtter's preposterous statement that they never suspected Simpson when they first went to his house make my liar's antenna shoot up. Even eight year olds know that the SO is the first suspect.

Too bad that LAPD never even looked for anyone else.

Holly, I agree Clark and Darden were lightweights but despite their mistakes and problems the fact is that all the relevant physical evidence proved Simpson guilty. The witnesses tell us when he committed the murders, and the many lies Simpson told under oath in the civil trial confirm his guilt.

There was no reason for the police to suspect Simpson was involved in these murders when they went to Rockingham other than as the ex-husband he was a possible suspect the same as any other person who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until they were eliminated.

Vannatter testified that it wasn't until he saw the glove at Rockingham that Simpson became a suspect. After seeing the blood on Simpson driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

Nothing ever eliminated Simpson.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Lange and Vannatter were deluged by telephone calls, ranging from the LAPD high command and reporters to potential sources who want to offer information. These tips, usually provided anonymously, cause the LAPD to open a "clue book" for what would become 518 clues, 50 of which pointed to a variety of motives and suspects having nothing to do with Simpson. All fifty of these tips were investigated. Among those clues taken seriously and not so seriously include.

Person reporting heard dog bark and saw man run across her front yard.
Neo-Nazi bikers claim Nicole killed due to interracial marriage.
Inmate states he was approached to kill the victim.
Waiter at Mezzaluna missing from work (suspect?)
Mezzaluna is a cocaine distribution pint and Goldman is supplying.
(Person reporting) confesses to killing victims with bayonet.
Jason Simpson is the suspect.
Kato did it.
(Person reporting) saw a neighbor making a machete.
Nicole's family did it.
Psychic. Heard a voice. O.J. didn't do it.
Informant states the 'mob' committed murders.
Informant states Nicole 'laundering money. Mob 'whacked' her.
Psychic. A serial killer involved.
Ambulance attendant did it.
Two black men out of Houston did murders.
Hitman Johnny Reb killed victims.
Can prove Simpson didn't commit the murders.
Saw a Mercedes Benz follow Nicole from the Mezzaluna.
Caller confesses to murders.
Simpson didn't do it. (Caller) framed Simpson.
Indiana prisoner recruited to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) has videotape. Killer is a male, white.
(Person reporting) states, "This is my fault."
Gang member paid $260,000 to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) saw two guys grab Goldman and then attack Nicole.
Gang related murder.
(Person reporting provides) license number of vehicle involved in murders.
(Person reporting has) photo of man who knows real killers.
Fuhrman and Kato offered (Person reporting) $100,000 to kill victims."

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Evidence Dismissed,

bobaugust

Brett Cantor- more dismissed evidence

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Brett Cantor- more dismissed evidence

nettathirty, Brett Cantor was irrelevant to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, Brett Cantor was irrelevant to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

August,

HAHAHA!!

My turn, ok irrelevant.. how bout Gate Slam! Gimmeabreak!!!

2L8 4A D8

09-06-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Looks like a repeat. I don't think her new season starts until the 18th or so. Here is a link to what Darden said:

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200602/20060209/slide_20060209_284_202.jhtml

Thanks Socal for the link. Darden looks like that he still hasn't gotten over the OJ verdict and I can't say that I blame him.

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

HAHAHA!!

My turn, ok irrelevant.. how bout Gate Slam! Gimmeabreak!!!

nettathirty, your comment "how bout gate slam!" continues to show everyone your limited life experience when it comes to metal gates. You still can't seem to comprehend that a metal gate can be slammed so hard that it can bounce back open instead of latching.

I would think by now that you would have learned about metal gates or at least not bring the subject up since you completely embarrass yourself every time you do but since you have I'll be happy to indulge you in your masochistic needs.

August 17. 1995
THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened, so the only other gate that would have been slammed closed would be the mid-gate, but that gate was opened as well is my recollection.
MR. DOUGLAS: I do think, however, your Honor, a couple things that comes to mind. First, the slamming action is the clanging of metal against metal and not necessarily the clanging of the door locking into its metal jam; therefore, in optimum fairness it would probably be best for us to recreate each of the gates and to have Mr. Heidstra identify that sound which best replicates what he heard those gates--
THE COURT: Did you--
MR. DOUGLAS: You can slam a gate, your Honor.
THE COURT: I know you can slam a gate and you can slam it hard enough that it won't have time to latch.
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct. That is exactly my point.
THE COURT: I have slammed gates before myself.

But nettathirty evidently never has. Funny.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

August 17. 1995
THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened, so the only other gate that would have been slammed closed would be the mid-gate, but that gate was opened as well is my recollection.

bobaugust

August,

Spare me, I was a kid a (very very very Long Time Ago)..

2 Things that is very interesting..

Douglas is arguing in favor of the State, but he's OJs attorney..

Secondly, all Douglas said was the gate would not have latched.. The gate at Bundy was visibly WIDE OPEN, not just unlatched..

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Spectulation on your part. imo.

Darden did what he was asked to do by his employer. PERIOD. He performed his JOB.

Socal,

All the expert seems to be of the same mind set as me, that Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden was both into trial for his color! imo

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Spare me, I was a kid a (very very very Long Time Ago)..

2 Things that is very interesting..

Douglas is arguing in favor of the State, but he's OJs attorney..

Secondly, all Douglas said was the gate would not have latched.. The gate at Bundy was visibly WIDE OPEN, not just unlatched..

nettathirty, spare you? A very very very long time ago? Bull. This has been explained to you many times and not that long ago. Because you never admit to being wrong when you're proved wrong you continue to repeat posting the same mistakes. I'm sorry but either you're very dense, or you're handicapped in not being able to retain information, or you just keep forgetting that you're wrong or you're outright lying. Which one is it?

Read what you just quoted in your post.

THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened,

The gate was found opened.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Regardless of what you & some unnamed expert say, he did his job.

You seem to like the phrase that you keep inserting. Most thinking people know that Darden was intelligent, articulate & honorable. Three characteristics no one have ever accused your beloved sports hero of. I think it's pathetic that you feel the need to demean him whilst defending the double murderer.

Socal,

Realistic, he made enough money to get away from that corrupt DAs office.. What if he did it at the cost of a innocent AA male, so what right!

imo

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

. This has been explained to you many times and not that long ago.

bobaugust

August,

Listen, the gate that Heidstra heard and the Bundy gate are not 1 in the same.. Plus one of the neighbors, said he was outside at or around that same time, and he closed his gate because the barking dog being on the lose..

So give up, you and Heidstra both are confused!

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

left the D.A.'s office at the "cost of a innocent AA male"?

.

Socal

Darden became very wealthy from the attempted prosecution of a Innocent Black man, Orenthal James Simpson.. His newly garnered wealth allowed him to leave the corrupted LAPD and DA's office, where he could NO longer be used by the "MAN" for the skin of his color!

Reasonable Inference: He wasn't the DA's first choice to prosecute, only after the jury selection did Garcetti decide to bring in Brothadict Arnold...

IMO MOO JMHO..

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Listen, the gate that Heidstra heard and the Bundy gate are not 1 in the same.. Plus one of the neighbors, said he was outside at or around that same time, and he closed his gate because the barking dog being on the lose..

So give up, you and Heidstra both are confused!

nettathirty, is there no end to you repeating the same false and misinformation so many times after you've been shown it's wrong? Why do you continue to post lies?

Heidstra testified that it was Nicole's front gate he heard slam. No one has ever contradicted him. No one has ever presented one shred of evidence that contradicts what he said.

There was no other neighbor outside at that time. Once again you've using one of Dick Wagner's fabrications that he made up about another gate slamming. Wagner invented the story about Karpf slamming his gate. Not only didn't Karpf ever say that but Karpf wasn't even home yet when Heidstra heard Nicole's front gate slam.

Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam seconds after he heard the two male voices coming from her condo. That was about 10:40.

February 8, 1995
Q BY MS. CLARK: YES, SIR.
YOU GOT HOME AT 10:45. DID YOU GO DIRECTLY INTO YOUR APARTMENT AND OUT TO THE STREET TO GET TO YOUR MAIL?
A YES, I DID.
Q SO 10:45 OR -47, YOU SAW THE DOG?
A I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE.
Q AND WHERE IN THE STREET WAS THE DOG WHEN YOU SAW IT?
A AT THAT POINT, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET JUST RUNNING OR WALKING AIMLESSLY.
Q AND BARKING?
A BARKING VERY LOUDLY.
Q AND WHAT DID IT DO WHEN YOU APPROACHED YOUR MAIL BOX?
A IT STARTED TO APPROACH ME, WHICH IT DID SCARE ME. SO I ACTUALLY RETREATED BACK INSIDE MY GATE UNTIL IT MOVED ON.
Q WHEN YOU RETREATED BACK INSIDE YOUR GATE, WHAT DID IT DO?
A AFTER THAT, A FEW, MAYBE 20 SECONDS OR SO, IT STARTED BACK INTO THE STREET WALKING UP TOWARDS MONTANA.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES.

Socal

Geromino Pratt was wrongly convicted for killing 2 people in Santa Monica, while he was in Oakland.. Johnny Cochran won his appeal after Mr Pratt spent nearly 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not committ! :D

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam seconds after he heard the two male voices coming from her condo. That was about 10:40.

bobaugust

August,

I want you to meet a friend of mine, he'll explain to you that estimated times, aren't real times... So when a witness testifies he could be off as far as 10mins, up or down..

I can't think of that posters name, who made the statement about estimated times not being real times, but you would like him I think...

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Originally posted by socaldiva [/i]
Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Socal

I replied to this post from you, where are you ?

bobaugust

09-07-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

I want you to meet a friend of mine, he'll explain to you that estimated times, aren't real times... So when a witness testifies he could be off as far as 10mins, up or down..

I can't think of that posters name, who made the statement about estimated times not being real times, but you would like him I think...

nettathirty, you got it wrong again. How many times have I said that to you? About a hundred? Unbelievable.

Estimated times are not real times. They only tell us approximately when an event happened not the exact time. They may be off by minutes or seconds or they may not be off at all.

For you to argue that maybe Louis Karpf's estimated time was off by ten minutes because his testimony contradicts the fantasy that Wagner made up is ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no evidence that contradicts Karpf's estimated times.

The facts are the facts. Karpf got home shortly after Simpson left Bundy, not five or so minutes earlier when Heidstra heard the two male voices yelling at each other from Nicole's condo and her front gate slam. Karpf did not hear any male voices yelling at each other. Karpf did not slam nor did he hear any gate slam. All of Simpson's defense attorneys understood this and no one ever suggested the fantasy Wagner made up. You're about the only person I've run across who is gullible enough to actually believe Wagner's fabrications were real facts.

Good job deceiving yourself.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

Your Post is just hearsay on your part. You can't prove one point that you make in your Post. Thus, it has absolutely no relevance to anything, other than being your own opinion. WOW! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, is there no end to you repeating the same false and misinformation so many times after you've been shown it's wrong? Why do you continue to post lies?

<snipped>

bobaugust

Well, #1, he doesn't have anything better to do; #2, he would have absolutely nothing to do all day long but twiddle his thumbs; #3, he wants and needs to be a part of something, even if he has to lie or exaggerate to be a part of it; and #4, the Moderator(s) let him get away with it, so he does!

JMO and MOO!!

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

That is, IMO, the mistake blacks make. They call the honorable blacks traitors and embrace the thugs like OJ, who to this day, rather be around white people.

The one who used the race card was Johnny Cochrane. It was reported that he said all he needed was one black on the jury. He knew how to push their buttons.

Marsha Clark blew it by not objecting to having an almost all black jury. That was a jury of racists, IMO.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>

There was no reason for the police to suspect Simpson was involved in these murders when they went to Rockingham other than as the ex-husband he was a possible suspect the same as any other person who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until they were eliminated.

Vannatter testified that it wasn't until he saw the glove at Rockingham that Simpson became a suspect. After seeing the blood on Simpson driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

Nothing ever eliminated Simpson.

<snipped>
bobaugust

Uh, let's see. He was an angry, jealous ex-husband who had abused Nicole before.

Ron Goldman's blood was in his white SUV.

He had no qualms whatsoever putting on gloves that had his wife's blood on it, and he snapped them off like he had done it a hundred times before. Gloves that are too tight and don't fit can't be snapped off so easily.

He had motive and opportunity.

He can't account for those minutes that the murders were ocurring.

The blood evidence and DNA proved he committed the murders. Just because they were dismissed does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. There was plenty more evidence proving OJ did it that got thrown out.

And last, but certainly not least, a civil jury hearing ALL the evidence ruled that HE DID IT.

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

That is, IMO, the mistake blacks make. They call the honorable blacks traitors and embrace the thugs like OJ, who to this day, rather be around white people.

The one who used the race card was Johnny Cochrane. It was reported that he said all he needed was one black on the jury. He knew how to push their buttons.

Marsha Clark blew it by not objecting to having an almost all black jury. That was a jury of racists, IMO.

.... The state played the race card, when they tried to exploit Darden based on the color of his skin....

.... Sunny Day, are you saying that "Black People" aren't qualified to sit on a jury.. Just because you don't agree with 1 trial verdict an entire race of people should be excluded from the entire Judicial System.. It's amazing with this type of thinking, why black people aren't so quick to trust OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM..ooops, i'm sorry, YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM...

.... Considering you don't think Black People should sit on a jury panel, explains your " Mistakes BLACK PEOPLE" make .. comment.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

.... The state played the race card, when they tried to exploit Darden based on the color of his skin....

.... Sunny Day, are you saying that "Black People" aren't qualified to sit on a jury.. Just because you don't agree with 1 trial verdict an entire race of people should be excluded from the entire Judicial System.. It's amazing with this type of thinking, why black people aren't so quick to trust OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM..ooops, i'm sorry, YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM...

.... Considering you don't think Black People should sit on a jury panel, explains your " Mistakes BLACK PEOPLE" make .. comment.

Yes, that's what I'm saying regarding the OJ case, thanks to Cochrane playing the race card and dividing the nation down racial lines, blacks were very biased in this case.

They wanted to "get even" with the LAPD for calling them the "n" word.

The LAPD gave OJ a pass on several occassions when they were called out to his place after he abused his wife.

The state didn't play the race card half as expertly as Johnny Cochrane did.

That jury chose the wrong "black" man to nullify a case for. They chose a "black" man who, to this day, prefers to be around white people and counts as his most proud achievement his being accepted and adored by whites.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Holly
.I don't know Mr. Simpson and I seriously doubt that you do. Therefore, I am quite sure that neither of us can speak for him or knows what he considers his greatest achievement.

Can you provide documentation of this so-called boast of his? While you are about it, maybe you will provide a list of the "whites" who accept and adore him. As I recall, the majority of his "white" friends abandoned him. Even many of his attorneys have indicated that they believe he is guilty.

I am referring to his status BEFORE he butchered his wife, and whites were very much a part of his fan base, and he was VERY proud of that.

I cannot name all the white people who were his fans, or still are.

I cannot dig up a years old interview he gave where he expressed such pride that he heard a white fan say, "look at all those n*gg*rs...and there's OJ Simpson!". He was so proud that he wasn't called a n*gg*r too.

As I said, he agreed to be videoed by that sleazy promoter because he thinks he showing that he's still accepted by whites by being seen partying with trashy white girls.

MO.

fbgweezer

09-08-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Geromino Pratt was wrongly convicted for killing 2 people in Santa Monica, while he was in Oakland.. Johnny Cochran won his appeal after Mr Pratt spent nearly 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not committ! :D Elmer Pratt was convicted of killing 1 woman. Cochran and HANLON won his appeal.

fbgweezer

09-08-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal,

All the expert seems to be of the same mind set as me, that Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden was both into trial for his color! imo You evidently haven't read Darden's book. You might find it interesting where he writes about how his participation in the trial came about and why he didn't turn it down.

You know what is amusing about your post? You have posted that the jury didn't convict Orenthal for the murders based on doubt and not race YET because Darden was one of the prosecutors, you refer to him as a traitor.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Yes, that's what I'm saying regarding the OJ case, thanks to Cochrane playing the race card and dividing the nation down racial lines, blacks were very biased in this case.

They wanted to "get even" with the LAPD for calling them the "n" word.

The LAPD gave OJ a pass on several occassions when they were called out to his place after he abused his wife.

The state didn't play the race card half as expertly as Johnny Cochrane did.

That jury chose the wrong "black" man to nullify a case for. They chose a "black" man who, to this day, prefers to be around white people and counts as his most proud achievement his being accepted and adored by whites.

MO.

SunnyDay,

It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing.. Your first point, Cochran (no E) didn't divide this Nation.. This nation was a melting pot long before the OJ trial...

Flashback:

Rodney King
Susan Smith
Charles Stuart

So, you're saying the Jury's verdict was because of Fuhrman and nothing else? It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing..

The state may not have played the race card as well as Cochran (No E), but they played it, and they played it first!

Other than what you "THINK", what evidence (LINK)please that supports your theory of this jury, righting pass wrongs with this case....

Based on your response, you probably have absolutely NO contact with people of other races.. You sit and watch your television and from that you've developed a "PROFILE" about Black People, it amazes me!

jhmo.. imo

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You evidently haven't read Darden's book. You might find it interesting where he writes about how his participation in the trial came about and why he didn't turn it down.

You know what is amusing about your post? You have posted that the jury didn't convict Orenthal for the murders based on doubt and not race YET because Darden was one of the prosecutors, you refer to him as a traitor.

fbg,

Darden, as a BUSINESS decision this was the GREATEST DECISION he could have ever made.. He's RICH!! However, let's not fool ourselves, the guy was NOT the states first choice.. He only became visible when the jury was selected.. They only wanted Chris because he was black, and nothing more.. When the glove demonstration failed, you see how they turned on the Brotha, and that is what Cochran (no E) was referring to that was mentioned in Darden's book!!

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 04:18 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by nettathirty
pass wrongs with this case.... It's past (no S)

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 04:21 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by nettathirty
He's RICH!! Wonder if he took it with him?

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* It's past (no S)

fbg,

I appreciate that, i tend to get so caught up in my thoughts.. I omit or substitute words based on what sounds right... :beer:

caphill

09-09-2006, 06:46 PM

Sunny Day

09-09-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.

You bring up all the legalese, technicalities, loopholes, nullifications and all other legal mumbo jumbo, but at the end of the day, OJ murdered two people, and there was a mountain of evidence against him even AFTER most of it got thrown out. Even HE isn't looking for the "real" killer.

The fact is, and you cannot dispute it, people DO get a way with murder. They are never tried, they are never caught, but their victims or no less dead. Just because some jury didn't convict them doesn't make them innocent.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-09-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

SunnyDay,

It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing.. Your first point, Cochran (no E) didn't divide this Nation.. This nation was a melting pot long before the OJ trial...

Flashback:

Rodney King
Susan Smith
Charles Stuart

So, you're saying the Jury's verdict was because of Fuhrman and nothing else? It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing..

The state may not have played the race card as well as Cochran (No E), but they played it, and they played it first!

Other than what you "THINK", what evidence (LINK)please that supports your theory of this jury, righting pass wrongs with this case....

Based on your response, you probably have absolutely NO contact with people of other races.. You sit and watch your television and from that you've developed a "PROFILE" about Black People, it amazes me!

jhmo.. imo

Well stop being amazed because you are WRONG. I DO have interaction with people of different races, and this case was about getting even with the LAPD. No I do not know blacks' thinking, but Johnny Cochrane did and he played them like a fiddle, IMO. Even though I can't read their minds, I can understand why they would want to get even with the LAPD who they see profiling them, but as I said, they picked the wrong black man to nullify a case for. To this day, OJ would rather be around whites and not even YOU can dispute THAT.

I spoke to several blacks who wanted OJ to get away with it. If you notice, whenever the accused is black and the victim is white, they want the accused to get away with it, i.e., OJ, MJ, Bryant.

And a melting pot is different that a dividing line, and Cochrane by playing the race, made it a racial case to blacks, not so much for whites because whites were for OJ too.

I guess you didn't see the blacks cheering when OJ was found "not guilty" by jury nullification did you?

BTW, that verdict should've been "not proven" because he's PLENTY guilty.

MO.

caphill

09-09-2006, 09:27 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES. [/QUO
TE]

LA and immediate areas of wrongfully convicted:

Clarence Chanice and Benny Powell served from 1975 to 1992 LAPD misconduct

Thomas Goldstein of Long Beach served 1980 to 2004

Harold Hall LA 1980 to 2004 police and prosecutorial misconduct

Jason Kindle LA served 2000-2003

Melvin Mikes LA served 1985 to 1991

There was a case (I think it was Santa Clara) where Ernest Graham was acquitted after being on death row. His conviction was reversed and he was retried based on the prosecution excluding African Americans from the prospective jury.

This is from a list of 30 of Ca rather recent reversals. An overwhelming majority of the reversals were police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Of course the Rampart cases that sprung up after the OJ trial is mind blowing.

The Rampart cases was the biggest police corruption in LA history with more than a billion dollars of liability. That liability to the city was nothing in comparison to the shame brought to LAPD.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Well stop being amazed because you are WRONG. I DO have interaction with people of different races, and this case was about getting even with the LAPD. No I do not know blacks' thinking, but Johnny Cochrane did and he played them like a fiddle, IMO. Even though I can't read their minds, I can understand why they would want to get even with the LAPD who they see profiling them, but as I said, they picked the wrong black man to nullify a case for. To this day, OJ would rather be around whites and not even YOU can dispute THAT.

I spoke to several blacks who wanted OJ to get away with it. If you notice, whenever the accused is black and the victim is white, they want the accused to get away with it, i.e., OJ, MJ, Bryant.

And a melting pot is different that a dividing line, and Cochrane by playing the race, made it a racial case to blacks, not so much for whites because whites were for OJ too.

I guess you didn't see the blacks cheering when OJ was found "not guilty" by jury nullification did you?

BTW, that verdict should've been "not proven" because he's PLENTY guilty.

MO.

SunnyDay,

Remember this, if someone is constantly telling you exactly what you want to hear.

1. They are lying to you!
2. They are trying to distract you!

The defense wasn't the one who played the race card, as a matter of fact the defense didn't play the race card at ALL!!!!

Guess what, the prosecution knew about MF long before the defense and the public.. Johnny Cochran (no E), didn't expose M.Fuhrman, as a matter of fact he tried to warn the prosecution about M.Fuhrman...

The Simpson marriage was not that of "Escalating Violence" that leads to murder.. Yes, their was some abuse, more emotional than physical, probably equally shared.. I guess that is why none of the other officers who visited Rockingham over the years had a story to tell, or sell!

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by caphill
[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES. [/QUO
TE]

LA and immediate areas of wrongfully convicted:

Clarence Chanice and Benny Powell served from 1975 to 1992 LAPD misconduct

Thomas Goldstein of Long Beach served 1980 to 2004

Harold Hall LA 1980 to 2004 police and prosecutorial misconduct

Jason Kindle LA served 2000-2003

Melvin Mikes LA served 1985 to 1991

There was a case (I think it was Santa Clara) where Ernest Graham was acquitted after being on death row. His conviction was reversed and he was retried based on the prosecution excluding African Americans from the prospective jury.

This is from a list of 30 of Ca rather recent reversals. An overwhelming majority of the reversals were police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Of course the Rampart cases that sprung up after the OJ trial is mind blowing.

The Rampart cases was the biggest police corruption in LA history with more than a billion dollars of liability. That liability to the city was nothing in comparison to the shame brought to LAPD.

Caphill,

Wow!

Sunny Day

09-10-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Caphill,

Wow!

Caphill just posted a list of reasons why that mostly black jury wanted to nullify the case to get even with the LAPD.

And I still disagree. The defense had no reason to believe a black person on the "wrong" side of the law would sway the jury. I don't think they thought Darden would win any of the jury members, in fact, they probably warned him he would be called a "tom". How ironic. The only real "tom", IMO, was OJ.

Cochrane built his practice defending blacks with his race card strategy.

Bottom line--a civil jury heard ALL the evidence, including some that got thrown out, and found OJ committed the murders. No one else had motive and opportunity, and domestic abuse often leads to murder when you factor in divorce, jealousy, and a disgruntled ex who's pissed at all the alimony he has to pay.

MO.

fbgweezer

09-10-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Caphill just posted a list of reasons why that mostly black jury wanted to nullify the case to get even with the LAPD.

And I still disagree. The defense had no reason to believe a black person on the "wrong" side of the law would sway the jury. I don't think they thought Darden would win any of the jury members, in fact, they probably warned him he would be called a "tom". How ironic. The only real "tom", IMO, was OJ.

Cochrane built his practice defending blacks with his race card strategy.

Bottom line--a civil jury heard ALL the evidence, including some that got thrown out, and found OJ committed the murders. No one else had motive and opportunity, and domestic abuse often leads to murder when you factor in divorce, jealousy, and a disgruntled ex who's pissed at all the alimony he has to pay.

MO. :beer:

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:22 PM

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

I am referring to his status BEFORE he butchered his wife, and whites were very much a part of his fan base, and he was VERY proud of that.

I cannot name all the white people who were his fans, or still are.

I cannot dig up a years old interview he gave where he expressed such pride that he heard a white fan say, "look at all those n*gg*rs...and there's OJ Simpson!". He was so proud that he wasn't called a n*gg*r too.

As I said, he agreed to be videoed by that sleazy promoter because he thinks he showing that he's still accepted by whites by being seen partying with trashy white girls.

MO.

Not to worry. Mark Furman told him what he was in his eyes.

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:33 PM

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You think that Orenthal couldn't/wouldn't have killed Nicole & Ron because they are white & he adored white people? Wow! You really don't understand the dynamics of what transpired, do you?

Well, still running. I am left to surmise what you believe the dynamics are. O. J. (hereinafter, he) ate a big mac meal, found a phone booth, flew over to the crime scene, murdered two people, flew in the open window of his bedroom, where he had a secret phone booth, changed back to his regular identity and flew in a plane to Chicago. The Post was that he loved the adoration of whites. Why lessen your potential fan club? My scenario makes as much sense as the post to which I responded, imo.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The post you speak of was not "illogical", only your response. The dynamics were that Orenthal was an abusive, controlling, rageful man. It ended in him murdering his ex-wife once he knew that she was done with him. Had nothing to do with race.

Good, you have stopped running. You seem to have spent some time with him. There was testimony that she wanted to get back with him and he was considering it, but started a happy relationship with Paula. The post I responded to was about race.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You have your time frames mixed up. Nicole was not trying to get back with him when he murdered her. She was looking to move from Bundy & away from the area to be rid of him. She was done. I guess you also missed that Paula dumped him the very morning of the murders.

No, there was conflicting testimony about the status of O. J.'s and Nicole's relationship. I do believe that his relationship with Paula ended shortly after the murders. There was also rumors that the children, who were not put on the stand, imo, was best, heard an argument between Mommy and her friend. What about the partially frozen ice cream. I do not know who killed them. I can not call anyone a murderer. There are things that cause me concerns. Part of the prosecution's case was illogical and so were parts of the defense's, imho. What I am really concerned about is why people cannot accept the verdict in the criminal trial and want to refer to it as jury nullification.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

What conflicting testimony? by whom? Nicole was done with him after he threatened her with the IRS.

Paula testified that she dumped Orenthal the morning before the murders. She left him a message & there were phone records that showed he retrieved the message.

If memory serves me correctly, there was testimony from Kato. Another of the defense witnesses testified that O. J. had resigned himself to the fact that the marriage was over and happy with Paula. I am not sure how long that happiness lasted.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Sorry, but there was no testimony from Kato that Nicole was trying to get back together with Orenthal at the time of the murders.

How could Orenthal be happy with Paul if she dumped him the morning of the murders & was in Las Vegas with Michael Bolton?

She also testified that there was nothing between her and Michael. I wiil not argue Kato's testimony but, as I recall it, he suggested there was an on-going of-and-on sexual relationship between O. J. and Nicole and they were talking about getting back together.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

She also testified that there was nothing between her and Michael. I wiil not argue Kato's testimony but, as I recall it, he suggested there was an on-going of-and-on sexual relationship between O. J. and Nicole and they were talking about getting back together. You need to rewatch your tapes -- you do not have a good grasp on the facts/evidence/testimony of the case.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury. http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq1.htm: "In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecutors were going to ask a grand jury to charge Simpson with murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but the defense attorneys persuaded the court that the grand jurors had heard too much about the case to be able to make an impartial decision. That is, the defense attorneys filed a motion saying the grand jurors were too prejudiced by what they had seen on television and read in the papers to be able to review the evidence against Mr. Simpson impartially, the way a trial juror should. The judge agreed with the defense attorneys, which is very unusual. Normally, defense attorneys fail when they try to claim that a grand jury is biased. Courts reject these claims on the theory that all the grand jury does is bring charges, so even if a grand jury is biased, the person they charge can still prove their innocence at trial. But a California judge bought the defense's argument in the case of O.J. Simpson (perhaps because of the extraordinary publicity surrounding Mr. Simpson) and, instead of trying to start over with a new grand jury, the prosecutors used another method to charge Simpson with the murders."

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 01:12 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by Holly
why don't they emigrate? In this country it's spelled immigrate.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 01:40 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonchron.html: "June 24, 1994 Grand jury recused.
July 8, 1994 Six-day preliminary hearing ends with Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruling there is sufficient evidence for O.J. Simpson to stand trial on two counts of first-degree murder."

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Unless you are actually personally acquained with Mr. Simpson, this post is beyond preposterous.

It borders on manic. WTH? All of which was proven by evidence/fact/testimony.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Holly

Link for this, please. I don't believe it for a minute. Why did she buy a condo so close to him? Why didn't she get as far away from him as she could?

Who cares? Or do you think this is why he killed his ex-wife? It would have made more sense to kill Paula. Nicole said/wrote that she thought it was important to keep the kids in the neighborhood they'd grown up in -- same school, etc. There is evidence that she had already leased a new place away from Brentwood at the time of her death. Most people have interpreted it to mean this was her final break with Orenthal.

I don't think Orenthal cared that deeply for Paula -- I've always felt he had a need to be connected to a woman. Maybe doubted his own sexuality/worth? You know, I've often heard women described this way but I think Orenthal is the first man I ever considered that way. No one has suggested that he murdered Nicole because Paula broke up with him that day. Most G's believe this was one of many things that came together that day for the 'perfect storm' --

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 03:37 PM

*SNIP*Originally posted by Holly
Why did she buy a condo so close to him? Why didn't she get as far away from him as she could? Ever hear the saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Nope, no link. Go do some research & you'll come up with the same info.

Who cares? Why don't you read the posts leading up to this? William Anthony was posting about OJ being happy with Paula at the time of the murders.

You are right. I said at the time, not the day after.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Indeed, I have often seen the saying.

Since, however, husbands, former husbands, boyfriends, or former boyfriends as the most likely to do a woman physical harm, the more prudent action would have been to move as far away from this particular "enemy" as possible.

But all of this is just so much crying over spilt milk. Mr. Simpson has been acquitted iin a court of law and can never be tried for this murder again, the civil verdict notwithstanding.

At last a voice of reason and logic.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Then why are you wasting your time posting here & debating the issue? :shrug:

Proably because she, I and others wonder why you cannot accept the verdicts for what they are and still proclaim to the world, as if you have the truth locked up in your treasure chest, that he is without a doubt the killer.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Only to those that don't have a grasp on domestic violence. Those that do know about it, know that the most dangerous time is when the woman makes the break to free herself from the batterer.

According to your theory then, he should have killed here at the time they decided to live in different homes.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Why do you feel compelled to answer for her? She's here & able to post for herself.

I am sorry if you mistook my post. I was answering for all those who may not feel the same as you and others, of which I can readily name two. Fbgweezer has answered for you.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It's not my theory. Why don't you go read up on domestic violence?

I was merely responding to your post. Personally, I found Paula much more attractive and would have more likely been upset when she broke up with me. But, if I had his money, I would manage to find a dozen Nichole's and Paula's.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I didn't "mistake" your post. I asked a specific question of another poster & you felt you needed to answer.

Are you saying that I should not have the right to post? This is an open forum, I believe, where people can respond to each other in what, I believe should be, an open and honest manner without fear of reproach.

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Well, still running. I am left to surmise what you believe the dynamics are. O. J. (hereinafter, he) ate a big mac meal, found a phone booth, flew over to the crime scene, murdered two people, flew in the open window of his bedroom, where he had a secret phone booth, changed back to his regular identity and flew in a plane to Chicago. The Post was that he loved the adoration of whites. Why lessen your potential fan club? My scenario makes as much sense as the post to which I responded, imo.

So, you're saying that OJ turned into some kind of Vampire? Flying here and there through the dark of night? GMAB! OJ certainly can't be compared to Superman that's for sure. I thought that I had heard all of the NG's scenarios, but this one takes the cake! Keep up the good work. We need a lot more laughs around here! :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Geesh. This wasn't about looks & I doubt that anyone here cares who you think was prettier.

To those of you who think that he was so enthralled by Nicole, that he would murder her in the presence of his and her children, when he had a woman of equal if not greater beauty and was financially capable of getting better, it may have happened as you claim but there is reasonable doubt in my mind as to that particular motivation. If you think the issue was control, then why did has he not killed Paula? If it was jealousy, why has he not killed Bolton?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Holly
With all due respect, kind sir, you do not seem to understand that certain posters do not want you to post your opinions, even if what you say is merely the repetition of the ideas of some of the greatest political and legal scholars of all of recorded history.

To those who find offense in my wanting to adhere to well established legal principles, I am sorry, but please do not attempt to deter my ability to speak freely.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

So, you're saying that OJ turned into some kind of Vampire? Flying here and there through the dark of night? GMAB! OJ certainly can't be compared to Superman that's for sure. I thought that I had heard all of the NG's scenarios, but this one takes the cake! Keep up the good work. We need a lot more laughs around here! :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

No, no, there has been an effort to make him into Superman, more with powers of God than Human. They ignore the time line, the fact that there is no record of any conversation between he and she and for some reason he decided to eat before killing two people, manage to escape without being identified, go home change, and catch a flight.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

To those of you who think that he was so enthralled by Nicole, that he would murder her in the presence of his and her children, when he had a woman of equal if not greater beauty and was financially capable of getting better, it may have happened as you claim but there is reasonable doubt in my mind as to that particular motivation. If you think the issue was control, then why did has he not killed Paula? If it was jealousy, why has he not killed Bolton? He was obsessed with Nicole -- that does not equate to love. He had controlled her life since she was 17 years old and it was over -- very hard for him to take. He did not have Paula -- she dumped him the morning of the murders. We've seen the 'beauties' he's been able to get since then: one called police that she was afraid of him and the others were real sweeties in the lap dance video. He's still got a thing for blondes.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:28 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by William Anthony
why has he not killed Bolton? Because cowards beat up women --

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Get real. You had the dynamics of a class action lawsuit BACKWARDS. :lol:

As I told you the spirit of that particular post was in jest, not being technically correct. However, will you tell me who can participate in a class action and why such suits are allowed?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Because cowards beat up women --

I told her you answered for her. You confirmed it you are bobie, imo! you snip and only answer one part, but I'm glad you did, because the Mr. Simpson could not have been the murderer of Ron, according to your post.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I told her you answered for her. You confirmed it you are bobie, imo! you snip and only answer one part, but I'm glad you did, because the Mr. Simpson could not have been the murderer of Ron, according to your post. :confused:

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yes, you continually make excuses as to why you post items that are not based on reality or fact.

I do know what a class action lawsuit is, or I wouldn't have been able to call you out on it. If you don't know what it is, I suggest you :read:

Why anyone knows what it is, but tell me who can particpate and why, before you scold. You have time to read up on it. Then tell me what legal theory could prevent a member of a class action from participating.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:36 PM

looks like a mutual admiration society -- YIKES!

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Why anyone knows what it is, but tell me who can particpate and why, before you scold. You have time to read up on it. Then tell me what legal theory could prevent a member of a class action from participating. Oh my -- some lawyer told him he'd make a good lawyer someday when he grew up and wham! he thinks he's made it. I doubt socal gives a flip about who can and can't participate, blah, blah, blah.....Maybe you need to find a board to discuss the merits of law.

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Proably because she, I and others wonder why you cannot accept the verdicts for what they are and still proclaim to the world, as if you have the truth locked up in your treasure chest, that he is without a doubt the killer.

The criminal verdict was a piece of junk. Simpson is the killer, as most Americans believe, so it is only normal that folks voice their displeasure with the verdict. Americans speak up when they don't like something - it's healthy for the country. You are unwise to advocate suppressing it.

It's actually not uncommon for verdicts to be denounced - I guess you just don't like it in this particular case. But certainly those who protest the Simpson criminal verdict can teach a thing or two to some others, for they are model citizens compared to the folks who protested the verdict of the first Rodney King trial.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
He was obsessed with Nicole -- that does not equate to love. He had controlled her life since she was 17 years old and it was over -- very hard for him to take. He did not have Paula -- she dumped him the morning of the murders. We've seen the 'beauties' he's been able to get since then: one called police that she was afraid of him and the others were real sweeties in the lap dance video. He's still got a thing for blondes.

You continue to amaze me. He was so obssed with her that he allowed her to move away and date whomever, without killing her. I, for one, would rather have an ex-wife that dates others than a current cheating wife.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:53 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
He was so obssed with her that he allowed her to move away and date whomever, without killing her. Uh - helloooo...........he did kill her.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:54 PM

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Ron? Ron?

Ron Who?

This is a Simpson matter thread. Ron Somebody had something to do with the Peterson West matter, another travesty of justice. Okay - now you're starting to scare me.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by RainStorm

The criminal verdict was a piece of junk. Simpson is the killer, as most Americans believe, so it is only normal that folks voice their displeasure with the verdict. Americans speak up when they don't like something - it's healthy for the country. You are unwise to advocate suppressing it.

It's actually not uncommon for verdicts to be denounced - I guess you just don't like it in this particular case. But certainly those who protest the Simpson criminal verdict can teach a thing or two to some others, for they are model citizens compared to the folks who protested the verdict of the first Rodney King trial.

Quite to the contrary. I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. I have asked on another thread to this case why are certain elements of American society not as outraged of the treatment of Ted Kennedy and the verdict in regard to the Dupont who murdered and dimembered his neighbor. Unless, you have been denied access to justice, presumed guilty because of the color of your skin, killed and beaten by policemen for that same reason, murdered and the killers, and jury made a mockery of the judicial system, you could not understand how people feel when another baised verdict is rendered. You watched it, we did it, so what. You still do not and will not have justice unless you can bleach yourself. Hardly do we see those who benefit from a tainted system react in the same way as the unbenefited. So take pride in your reserve.

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 05:00 PM

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

William Anthony posted that Orenthal should file a class action lawsuit against those that refer to him as a double murderer :lol:

He's a real legal eagle, no wonder you "applaud" him :rolleyes:

If you are going to quote me at least quote me right. In response to you post, which I took in jest, I replied "class action! Hope I have my license by then." I have made a claim to be without sin, which was also in jest. I have never claimed to be perfect.:)

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

That must be why Michael Jackson was found not guilty. He followed your suggestion.

See, communication is a process of education. You are getting smarter. You got it right.:)

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Holly
While I am not trained in the law, I rather imagine that no court would accept a "class action" from one person.

However, there are many strange things that the law allows. I will have to check with my friends who have been admitted to the bar before I render a judgment. William Anthony could use your expertise...........how about you guys email each other?:eek:

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, no, there has been an effort to make him into Superman, more with powers of God than Human. They ignore the time line, the fact that there is no record of any conversation between he and she and for some reason he decided to eat before killing two people, manage to escape without being identified, go home change, and catch a flight.

OJ is no Superman by a long shot! OJ called Nicole a lot, harrassing her constantly, started in on his tirade which ended up making her cry. She would always say to the kids when asked, "Oh, that was just Mommie's friend." She certainly didn't want the kids to know that it was Daddy that was making her cry! Smart Mommie if he ask me.

That's exactly what OJ did. Had a burger at McDonald's with Kato to establish his alibi and the rest is history! Oh, yes, OJ was identified, by Jill Shively when he ran the red light and almost hit another car.

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
William Anthony could use your expertise...........how about you guys email each other?:eek:

Weezer,

I troubled my mind to figure out what fbg stood for. Why I did that I do not know. However, could it stand for Fan of Bobaugust's Gibberish? :seeya:

fbgweezer

09-11-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Weezer,

I troubled my mind to figure out what fbg stood for. Why I did that I do not know. However, could it stand for Fan of Bobaugust's Gibberish? :seeya: Ahh, I'm certainly a fan of bobaugust

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Quite to the contrary. I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. I have asked on another thread to this case why are certain elements of American society not as outraged of the treatment of Ted Kennedy and the verdict in regard to the Dupont who murdered and dimembered his neighbor. Unless, you have been denied access to justice, presumed guilty because of the color of your skin, killed and beaten by policemen for that same reason, murdered and the killers, and jury made a mockery of the judicial system, you could not understand how people feel when another baised verdict is rendered. You watched it, we did it, so what. You still do not and will not have justice unless you can bleach yourself. Hardly do we see those who benefit from a tainted system react in the same way as the unbenefited. So take pride in your reserve.

How many race cards you got in that deck, William Anthony? You're trying to say folks weren't as outraged by Ted and Dupont because they're white guys, aren't you? Bunk. First, Ted didn't murder. Involuntary manslaughter, maybe. So that comparison is not apropos to Simpson. And Ted paid for it. Dupont, you got to be kidding. Most people didn't even follow it, so how could they be outraged?

You want to talk a race case that's apropos to Simpson? How about the acquittal of the killers of Emmett Till? You going to take that one lying down like you expect everyone to take the Simpson criminal verdict?

You don't take into consideration the massive amount of progress that has been made in this country with respect to race. Progress facilitated by folks of all colors.

Until you stop seeing a white hood on every caucasian, you are biased beyond the ability to reason in the Simpson case, and a lot of other stuff too.

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If you are going to quote me at least quote me right. In response to you post, which I took in jest, I replied "class action! Hope I have my license by then." I have made a claim to be without sin, which was also in jest. I have never claimed to be perfect.:)

So, let me get this straight. You put out a baiting post and when we all respond to it, we get raked over the coals for our opinions. Then you come out and state, "Oh, I just said it in jest!" Excuse me? WTH? Whether you realize it or not, your credibility just went down to "Less than Zero" IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Holly
HUH?!?

The Constitution forbids double jeopardy. The civil suit, IMO, was illegal. Even if allwable, the NOT GUILTY verdict should have been an absolute defense.

I think that you need to take yourself over to the Politics Board. Your expertise is obviously needed over on that Board more than on this Board. How can you possibly expect us to take you seriously when you just flit in and out like a little horse fly? Biting, stinging with your nasty posts and even nastier answers!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.

Why wasn't OJ indicted by the Grand Jury? How can someone have a trial, and not be indicted?

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Holly

<snipped>

If you continue to publish misreadings of my posts, I will report you to the moderator. It is hardly my fault that you cannot understand what you read an refuse to use a dictionary to look up words you do not understand.

:flamemad:

Isn't it odd that the majority of all of the tattletailers on this Board are NG's? Is anyone surprised by this other than myself?

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Holly

*Snipped*

You really need to do some research into the judicial system in this country works.

.

Holly,

Well, thanks.. I think!

Sunny Day

09-11-2006, 06:35 PM

BTW,

to those who like to say that domestic abuse doesn't lead to murder....right, when no dead spouse turns up.

The difference between abuse that doesn't lead to murder and abuse that does lead to murder: a dead spouse.

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day
BTW,

to those who like to say that domestic abuse doesn't lead to murder....right, when no dead spouse turns up.

The difference between abuse that doesn't lead to murder and abuse that does lead to murder: a dead spouse.

Domestic Violence did not play a role in the Simpson case..

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Holly

<snipped>

That is certainly a crackup.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yes, your post certainly is!

Hardy any NG who posted on this board during the Peterson debacle is still here.

And you know this how? Where's your link to substantiate your comment? Oh, it's just your opinion! Since this is NOT the Peterson Board, it is thus a moot point!

The Gs got most of them banned and the really superior posters who were not banned left because of the kind of incomprehension and misquoting that appear in this thread.

AGAIN, and you know this how? Where's your link to substantiate your comment? Oh, it's just your opinion! Since this is NOT the Peterson Board, it is thus a moot point!

<snipped>

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Whatever.

:biggrin:

Typical NG response when they're painted into a corner. Either that, or they don't answer your post at all! Your credibility just went down to "Less than Zero" IMO! Not that you care!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by RainStorm

How many race cards you got in that deck, William Anthony? You're trying to say folks weren't as outraged by Ted and Dupont because they're white guys, aren't you? Bunk. First, Ted didn't murder. Involuntary manslaughter, maybe. So that comparison is not apropos to Simpson. And Ted paid for it. Dupont, you got to be kidding. Most people didn't even follow it, so how could they be outraged?

You want to talk a race case that's apropos to Simpson? How about the acquittal of the killers of Emmett Till? You going to take that one lying down like you expect everyone to take the Simpson criminal verdict?

You don't take into consideration the massive amount of progress that has been made in this country with respect to race. Progress facilitated by folks of all colors.

Until you stop seeing a white hood on every caucasian, you are biased beyond the ability to reason in the Simpson case, and a lot of other stuff too.

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Holly
He was bound over for trial as a result of the ruling by the Judge at the preliminary hearing. The defense took a risk in demanding a prelim instead of the GJ because they ran the risk of exposing their defense before the actual trial.

You really need to do some research into the judicial system in this country works.

BTW, I do not know if the actual indictment was done by the DA or the Judge's ruling.

The defense was smart in demanding an opportunity, because they got the chance to crossexamine the testimony and look at the evidence. They would not have been allowed in the GJ. That is how the Judicial system in this country works.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Holly

Hi, Tony Bill:-

I think my obstreperousness has driven everyone off.

Do you think that means we won?

:patriot: :biggrin:

We shall always win. I saw one of your post on the topic of religion. I am very impressed.

bobaugust

09-11-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony, there's been plenty of progress. The criminal trial verdict proved that a wealthy black celebrity is equal to all the wealthy white men who have bought their way out of murders they committed. The LA black community was evidently very proud of that and opened their arms to their black brother until he left them again and moved to Florida.

You say we should accept the fact that the jury found Simpson not guilty and simply sit back and ignore it. That tells us a lot about you. Fortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as passive and wimpy as you are about injustice. That was the reason for the civil trial. Justice, and the real search for the truth. The truth was found and the killer was punished to the greatest extent that was available to that court.

You know Simpson was the killer, you just wont admit it. That's understandable since you can't even admit to being wrong about even one of the many mistakes and false claims you've made on this discussion group. It's obvious you could care less about the civil trial by ignoring all of the new information and new evidence that became known after the criminal trial as well as the blatant lies Simpson told under oath. That way you can still argue the earth is flat.

Good job William Anthony.

bobaugust

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony,

I think you're being more than a little weasely. Your insinuation is that Kennedy skated because he's white. I explained why that's bunk.

Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

You have been attempting to berate people for their non-acceptance of the criminal verdict. That annoyed me, and I challenged it. So you respond with "I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion". Now you are once again questioning why people just don't accept it. Weasely. Disingenuous.

Another thing about folks who don't like the Simpson criminal verdict: They are models of good behavior compared to how Simpson's defenders would have behaved had the verdict been guilty.

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Holly
You are really sharp as a tack.

I am dazzled by your brilliance.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And I am baffled by your bullsh*t!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, there's been plenty of progress. The criminal trial verdict proved that a wealthy black celebrity is equal to all the wealthy white men who have bought their way out of murders they committed. The LA black community was evidently very proud of that and opened their arms to their black brother until he left them again and moved to Florida.

You say we should accept the fact that the jury found Simpson not guilty and simply sit back and ignore it. That tells us a lot about you. Fortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as passive and wimpy as you are about injustice. That was the reason for the civil trial. Justice, and the real search for the truth. The truth was found and the killer was punished to the greatest extent that was available to that court.

You know Simpson was the killer, you just wont admit it. That's understandable since you can't even admit to being wrong about even one of the many mistakes and false claims you've made on this discussion group. It's obvious you could care less about the civil trial by ignoring all of the new information and new evidence that became known after the criminal trial as well as the blatant lies Simpson told under oath. That way you can still argue the earth is flat.
Good job William Anthony.

bobaugust

I argure facts. The facts are that Mr. Simpson was tried criminally and civilly and neither of those trials declared him to be the murder, which is what you cannot accept. The whole concept of a civil trial is not about punishment, however, in certain circumstances punitive damages can be awarded. The purpose of a civil trial is to seek monetary or equitable relief. You have the unmitigated gaul to speak to me about justice, and you are ignorant (to use one of your favorite words) as to what justice means. Did you march for the civil rights of Blacks, did you applaud affirmative action, did you seek the truth as to the murder of Medgar Evars. did you protest the Tuskeegee Experiment, are you attempting to change the law, have you read IN The MATTER OF COLOR, do you believe in reverse discrimination? Your notion of justice and injustice is overwhelmingly erroneous and your appreciation for the legal process is abundantly lacking, imo.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by RainStorm

William Anthony,

I think you're being more than a little weasely. Your insinuation is that Kennedy skated because he's white. I explained why that's bunk.

Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

You have been attempting to berate people for their non-acceptance of the criminal verdict. That annoyed me, and I challenged it. So you respond with "I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion". Now you are once again questioning why people just don't accept it. Weasely. Disingenuous.

Another thing about folks who don't like the Simpson criminal verdict: They are models of good behavior compared to how Simpson's defenders would have behaved had the verdict been guilty.

You may have a guilty conscience. I was not insuating the reason Kennedy skated was white, although I will admit that is a distinct possibility. What I was wondering was why people are not as outraged that he skated as they are with the Simpson trial verdict. Read my words without inseting your words. I said I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. If people are so eager to dennounce and some to post transcripts of the Simpson criminal trial verdict, then be equally eager to dennounce the Dupont verdict and the preferrential treatment afforded Kennedy.

This portion of your posts requires a second posting.

"Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general."

I understand now. A country who from its inception espoused and held in lofty esteem the concept of Freedom and Equality, enslaved people because of their skin color, denied them equal rights, and murder some of them who wanted those concepts for their brothers, murdered a Reverend who taught non-violence in the struggle for civil rights showed the paramount degree of general humanity. How dare me to be confused, or to question someone as fair-minded, humanitarian, and knowledgeable as you about American History. Please, forgive me master and if you do not, who cares.

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You may have a guilty conscience. I was not insuating the reason Kennedy skated was white, although I will admit that is a distinct possibility.

<snip>

In comparing Simpson with Kennedy, you said "The only thing that is uncommon is race. I agree they all have wealth. Where is the outrage over the verdict in Dupont and lack of charges against Kennedy?". You certainly did insinuate Kennedy skated because he was white. Your whole perspective is saturated with race. You wouldn't've brought it up for any other reason. Bobaugust shows that he is honest and has character, which is more than I can say for you.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I argure facts. The facts are that Mr. Simpson was tried criminally and civilly and neither of those trials declared him to be the murder, which is what you cannot accept. The whole concept of a civil trial is not about punishment, however, in certain circumstances punitive damages can be awarded. The purpose of a civil trial is to seek monetary or equitable relief. You have the unmitigated gaul to speak to me about justice, and you are ignorant (to use one of your favorite words) as to what justice means. Did you march for the civil rights of Blacks, did you applaud affirmative action, did you seek the truth as to the murder of Medgar Evars. did you protest the Tuskeegee Experiment, are you attempting to change the law, have you read IN The MATTER OF COLOR, do you believe in reverse discrimination? Your notion of justice and injustice is overwhelmingly erroneous and your appreciation for the legal process is abundantly lacking, imo.

William Anthony, good rant, but once again you're wrong. You don't argue the facts in the Simpson case, you don't know the facts in the Simpson case. The fact you argue is that the criminal trial jury acquitted Simpson. The fact that you ignore is that verdict in no way means Simpson wasn't the killer.