OJ Simpson: Parenting his children in the aftermath [Archive]

gnm109

08-16-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by jotun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:beer:

Thinking

08-16-2006, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by gnm109

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

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

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

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

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

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

:beer:

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

jotun

08-16-2006, 08:37 PM

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

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

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

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

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

gnm109

08-16-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

gnm109

08-17-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

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

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

Regards,

gmn109 (NoCal lurker)

Charms

08-17-2006, 06:27 PM

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

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by gnm109

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

:)

gnm109,

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

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

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

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

jotun

08-17-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by gnm109

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

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

3. Case closed. Nothing you could say will ever change my mind. :)
Murder Trial
NOT GUILTY simply right.O.J.is FREE.
Money Trial
Simply WRONG.
How much of that 85
million do the plantiffs have. What little seiged was taken by their lawyers.Just like O.J.told the media.

You are right about one thing.
CASE CLOSED.

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

EDDIEisMINE

08-23-2006, 12:16 PM

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

Simpsonese

08-23-2006, 09:24 PM

How can the haters live with such hate?

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

limakey

08-25-2006, 12:37 AM

Eddie,

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

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

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

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

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

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

bobaugust

08-25-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

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

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

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

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

bobaugust

August,

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

bobaugust

08-25-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

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

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

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

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

Learn the facts.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Learn the facts.

bobaugust

August,

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

bobaugust

08-25-2006, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

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

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

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

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

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

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

bobaugust

August,

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

bobaugust

08-26-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

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

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

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

bobaugust

limakey

08-27-2006, 12:08 AM

Mr. August,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

limakey,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

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

bobaugust

August,

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

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

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

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

January 30, 1995

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

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

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

bobaugust

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

-

Frankincensed

09-01-2006, 12:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Frankincensed

09-01-2006, 12:14 PM

Just a couple of things:

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

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

fbgweezer

09-01-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Frankincensed
Just a couple of things:

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

Bear in mind the burden of proof in a civil trial - 49.9999999% didn't do it, 50.0000001% could have done it - will result in a verdict against defendant. Of course we know what the jury received as testimony. Or at least the posters who bothered to read the transcripts and use a little common sense. What we do know is that the ignorant and biased jury did not even consider the undisputed evidence, could not comprehend the scientific evidence and gave Orenthal a free pass on his abuse of Nicole. What they did do was return a verdict contrived from their perceptions of LE and not the murder of two people. What a sham that trial was.

dandmb50

09-05-2006, 09:29 PM

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

But what they are doing is not right.

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

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

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

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

Enough said....

Daniel.....Toronto

fbgweezer

09-06-2006, 12:24 PM

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

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

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

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

fbgweezer

09-07-2006, 01:43 PM

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

tazzybaby

09-07-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

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

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

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

*snip*

Hi LImakey,

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

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

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

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

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

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 02:46 PM

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

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

JMO and MOO!!

fbgweezer

09-07-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

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

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

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 03:36 PM

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

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

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

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

2L8,

They just might believe their father, when he say.."I didn't do it!"

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

They just might believe their father, when he say.."I didn't do it!" But didn't you think it was sad for him to take them so far away from everything they'd known their whole lives?

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
But didn't you think it was sad for him to take them so far away from everything they'd known their whole lives?

fbg,

I believe in, you reap what you sow!! I'm of the belief that Nicole and Ron were into something that cause their deaths, totally unrelated to OJ..

OJ was/ is a great provider but he was a absentee father, and he really didn't want that job full time.. (IMO).. With Nicole's death it forced OJ to take on that responsibility Had he gotten his kids away from the environment which lead to his ex-wifes death sooner. He would have probably saved himself the public humilation he now has to live with!

JMO IMO MOO

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

fbg,

I believe in, you reap what you sow!! I'm of the belief that Nicole and Ron were into something that cause their deaths, totally unrelated to OJ..

OJ was/ is a great provider but he was a absentee father, and he really didn't want that job full time.. (IMO).. With Nicole's death it forced OJ to take on that responsibility Had he gotten his kids away from the environment which lead to his ex-wifes death sooner. He would have probably saved himself the public humilation he now has to live with!

JMO IMO MOO You just made me laugh out loud! Thanks.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You just made me laugh out loud! Thanks.

fbg,

If you get the chance, review the evidence at Bundy with an open mind..

Ask yourself:

1. The glove, does it look like it was "flung" to it's final destination or did someone lay it there, (Not A Conspiracy)?

2. The cap, same thing.. does it look like it was tossed in a struggle, or maybe the wearer was bent over the victim and willingly removed his cap and laid it on the ground?

3. The bloody shoe print, ask yourself if Nicole blood was flowing when the print was made.. Shouldn't the blood flow cast off to the sides of the print?

goatgirl

09-09-2006, 06:18 PM

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

I dont think it was so much "selfishness" for moving

it could have been because la la land was beyond insane with this case....

I dont think those kids would have had any peace if they stayed

GoatGirl
:)

goatgirl

09-09-2006, 06:19 PM

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

I dont think it was so much "selfishness" for moving

it could have also been because la la land was beyond insane with this case....

I dont think those kids would have had any peace if they stayed

GoatGirl
:)

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty
fbg,

If you get the chance, review the evidence at Bundy with an open mind..

Ask yourself:

1. The glove, does it look like it was "flung" to it's final destination or did someone lay it there, (Not A Conspiracy)?

2. The cap, same thing.. does it look like it was tossed in a struggle, or maybe the wearer was bent over the victim and willingly removed his cap and laid it on the ground?

3. The bloody shoe print, ask yourself if Nicole blood was flowing when the print was made.. Shouldn't the blood flow cast off to the sides of the print?
1. The glove looks like it was dropped.
2. The cap looks like it was dropped (pulled off in the struggle?).
3. The experts testified (defense did not dispute) that the murderer was standing behind Nicole when he bent her head back and slit her throat. She was not standing. The blood went forward -- not behind her. Her blood pooled under her. Orenthal stepped in the blood as he walked on the sidewalk.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 06:26 PM

This is the actual photo the police took, provided by wagnerandson.com!

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/dear_08a.jpg

The blood completely surrounds the shoe, meaning when the print was made the blood was already on the ground..

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer

1. The glove looks like it was dropped.
2. The cap looks like it was dropped (pulled off in the struggle?).
3. The experts testified (defense did not dispute) that the murderer was standing behind Nicole when he bent her head back and slit her throat. She was not standing. The blood went forward -- not behind her. Her blood pooled under her. Orenthal stepped in the blood as he walked on the sidewalk.

The bloody print was made from standing in Nicole's blood correct?

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

The bloody print was made from standing in Nicole's blood correct? No that is not correct.

goatgirl

09-09-2006, 06:41 PM

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

Interesting question...

Perhaps they think OJ didn’t do it & that’s why they can live with him.

They are adults now so they can live where ever they want & they seem to want to be with OJ..

If they needed access to cash to move, I am sure they could get into their trust funds or go live with the Browns.

Who knows maybe the kids will write a book one day & we will read all about it…

hopefully it won’t be a Mommy Dearest story!

GoatGirl

:)

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
No that is not correct.

Who's blood was it?

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Who's blood was it? It was the same blood that he left on the floorboard of his Bronco -- Nicole's.

You were incorrect in stating that he 'stood' in the blood -- evidence is that he walked through it.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It was the same blood that he left on the floorboard of his Bronco -- Nicole's.

You were incorrect in stating that he 'stood' in the blood -- evidence is that he walked through it.

5mins from the "Hey Hey Hey" to the light colored SUV! And you believe OJ killed 2 people in less than 5mins.. LOL

:shrug:

William Anthony

09-09-2006, 10:11 PM

fbgweezer

09-09-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Happy Birthday! Thank you!

2L8 4A D8

09-10-2006, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

They just might believe their father, when he say.."I didn't do it!"

Uh huh Netta! IMO! GMAB!

bobaugust

09-10-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

5mins from the "Hey Hey Hey" to the light colored SUV! And you believe OJ killed 2 people in less than 5mins.. LOL

nettathirty, that's right. It was the opinion of many experts, specifically Dr. Spitz that it took Simpson only about a minute to kill Ron Goldman. And it didn't take him anywhere near that much time to slice the throat of his unconscious ex wife.

November 8. 1996 Werner Spitz

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. How long did the struggle take between Ron Goldman and the person that killed him?
A. It is my opinion that this struggle took around a minute, give or take.
Q. And what is the basis for your opinion that it took a minute, give or take?
A. Primarily, the nature of the injuries, the injury in the left flank was one that would have been incapacitating in very, very short time because what it did -- What it caused is a near immediate fall of the blood pressure, which means that because the blood oozes out from the circulation in the body, from the blood circulation in the body, there is not enough blood to reach the brain. A person loses ability to stand up, loses ability to think, becomes woozy and in very short order, becomes disabled. The rest of the injuries, the superficial injuries in the fight, you have to understand that many of these injuries occurred together in one movement. There is a lot of movement in this kind of
a situation. And when the knife is wielded there and you use it to stab, there may be a superficial injury in one place, the victim moves, and sustains a second and a third injury by the same wielding of the knife. So, yeah, there are a number of -- or a significant number of superficial injuries and four or five other deep wounds. But as the deep wound is inflicted, there is a scrape, a scraping of the tip of the knife causing superficial cuts in other places, and then the thrust, which penetrates. So you have to understand that there is not a lapse of time between wounds. It all goes in one context.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 01:01 AM

IT'S FBG'S BIRTHDAY
AND I''M SO GLAD!
HOPE THAT IT'S THE BEST BIRTHDAY
THAT FBG HAS EVER HAD!

APPY HAY IRTH DAY BAY FBG!

:rose: :rose: :rose:

Charms

09-11-2006, 02:37 AM

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

Well.. OJ was found Not Guilty by a jury. He has professed his innocence. His children are his blood... regardless.
Children bond to their parents, bond to their family.
Blood is Thicker than Water
I have no opinion of his guilt or non guilt.
I will have to confer with Dr. Henry Lee on that.

Beachbaby

09-11-2006, 11:48 AM

I believe he was acquitted because the jury did not understand DNA. As much as it is publicized on CSI, SVU and other "cold case" programs, retry him today with the same evidence and there could be a different verdict.

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Beachbaby
I believe he was acquitted because the jury did not understand DNA. As much as it is publicized on CSI, SVU and other "cold case" programs, retry him today with the same evidence and there could be a different verdict.

The Jury didn't even "TRY" to understand and go through the DNA evidence. They completely ignored it and just threw it aside. The Jury just wanted to get out of there and go home and their agenda was to "send a message" not render a true and just verdict. Judge Ito shouldn't have allowed that. He should have told them to go over ALL of the DNA evidence, even if it took another week of deliberations. What a travisity of Justice. Only 4 hours to render a double-murder verdict. What an absolute Joke of a Jury!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 06:54 PM

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

Had the jury deliberated longer, and still came back "Not Guilty" would you be more accepting of the verdict then?

The DNA said it all. So, NO, I wouldn't be more accepting of a "Not Guilty" verdict!"

I think that all of us G's at one time or another have asked you NG's that if you saw a video of OJ actually killing Nicole and Ron, would you believe that he was the murderer? If we got any responses at all, it was punctuated with "reasonable doubt this and reasonable doubt that" ~ ad nauseum! Never really admitting that OJ was the murderer. Have got to cover those butts in order not to be called a "traitor!"

Back at 'ya Netta!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

The DNA said it all. So, NO, I wouldn't be more accepting of a "Not Guilty" verdict!"

I think that all of us G's at one time or another have asked you NG's that if you saw a video of OJ actually killing Nicole and Ron, would you believe that he was the murderer? If we got any responses at all, it was punctuated with "reasonable doubt this and reasonable doubt that" ~ ad nauseum! Never really admitting that OJ was the murderer. Have got to cover those butts in order not to be called a "traitor!"

Back at 'ya Netta!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8,

Your question defies logic, if I saw OJ committing the murders on video would I admit it.. Would it really matter?

That would be like me asking you, if you saw a video of the murders and OJ isn't the killer, would you concede?

DNA, is not evidence of foul play.. For example, forensic could have extracted DNA from the envelop Juditha Browns glasses were in. Does that mean every person who had contact with the envelop was involved in the Bundy Murders, NO!

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

Your question defies logic, if I saw OJ committing the murders on video would I admit it.. Would it really matter?

That would be like me asking you, if you saw a video of the murders and OJ isn't the killer, would you concede?

DNA, is not evidence of foul play.. For example, forensic could have extracted DNA from the envelop Juditha Browns glasses were in. Does that mean every person who had contact with the envelop was involved in the Bundy Murders, NO!

I asked first. You would have to answer my post before I would concede to anything. With an answer of "Would it really matter?" says a lot about your character, which is questionable at best. I think that all of us know what your true agenda is and it's not about the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson.

JMO and MOO!!

cami

09-12-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

The Jury didn't even "TRY" to understand and go through the DNA evidence. They completely ignored it and just threw it aside. The Jury just wanted to get out of there and go home and their agenda was to "send a message" not render a true and just verdict. Judge Ito shouldn't have allowed that. He should have told them to go over ALL of the DNA evidence, even if it took another week of deliberations. What a travisity of Justice. Only 4 hours to render a double-murder verdict. What an absolute Joke of a Jury!

JMO and MOO!!

Judge Ito!!! He did more to guarantee a not guilty verdict than Fuhrman did. He used a lower court ruling to allow those tapes into the trial...never should have happened. Those tapes had nothing to do with OJ's guilt or innocence. Nor were the proof of Fuhrman's credibility or non credibility...they changed the complexion of the trial..and Clarke well she just compounded the thing by casting Fuhrman to the wolves..

As Bugliosli said and I agree "you can't bleed over two murder victims and be innocent of the crime."

sunsplashed

09-14-2006, 10:06 PM

They were so young at the time of Nicole's death. OJ is their father and by all accounts, he's never harmed them. I guess they love him.

JMO

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

5mins from the "Hey Hey Hey" to the light colored SUV! And you believe OJ killed 2 people in less than 5mins.. LOL

:shrug:

nettathirty, that's right. Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole in less than five minutes.

I posted Dr. Spitz's testimony that explained how it would have taken Simpson only about a minute to kill Ron. After dropping Ron to the ground to bleed to death Simpson returned to his unconscious ex wife and sliced her throat.

Five minutes between when Heidstra heard Ron arrive at Bundy and yell at Simpson and when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy was more than enough time for Simpson to have done what the evidence tells us he did.

bobaugust

martin II

09-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
But didn't you think it was sad for him to take them so far away from everything they'd known their whole lives?

fbgweezer

Do you believe it would have been better to stay in Brentwood/La
and leave his kids available to the local media so they could show up at the kids school for photo ops and surprised interviews.

No.
It was a great move to take his kids to Florida and start a new life for them and himself in a home out of reach of Fred and the Browns. imo

martin II

fbgweezer

09-15-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbgweezer

Do you believe it would have been better to stay in Brentwood/La
and leave his kids available to the local media so they could show up at the kids school for photo ops and surprised interviews.

No.
It was a great move to take his kids to Florida and start a new life for them and himself in a home out of reach of Fred and the Browns. imo

martin II If I thought he moved to Florida for the kids' sake, I'd agree. But, he moved to Florida to protect his assets. Those kids were no less Orenthal's kids in Floriday than they would have been in Brentwood. He certainly didn't seem to mind bringing attention to himself with his cable stealing, road raging, girlfriend threatening, daughter emotionally abusing -- he could have just gone on being himself in LA and the kids would have had their support system.

fbgweezer

09-15-2006, 02:28 PM

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
martin II Hey, where you been? We wondered when your parole hearing was scheduled! :eek: :D

martin II

09-15-2006, 03:03 PM

Hi Bob

Dr. Spitz was only guessing about the time line. He didn't know any more than you did about how much time it took for two people to by slaughtered by the killers in nicoles front walkway.imo

martin II

martin II

09-15-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Hey, where you been? We wondered when your parole hearing was scheduled! :eek: :D

weezer
I expected that comment from you. However No parole for me. Only the good food and fun in Africa and Italy for the last several weeks for me.

I do see you are up to your old tricks though. hahahahahaha

Martin II

martin II

09-15-2006, 03:17 PM

weezer

OJ was interested in supporting his kids not Fred, therefore the move to Florida.

PS I heard Fred say he "will never move on" as far as his sons murder is concerned.

martin II

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by martin II
Hi Bob

Dr. Spitz was only guessing about the time line. He didn't know any more than you did about how much time it took for two people to by slaughtered by the killers in nicoles front walkway.imo

martin II

martin II, I see you haven't learned very much in your absence. Did you bother to read the testimony Dr. Spitz's testimony I posted in a message earlier about five messages before my last message you're responding to?

Spitz opined that it took about a minute to kill Ron Goldman and told why he came to that opinion based on the cuts and injuries inflicted.

bobaugust

martin II

09-15-2006, 04:28 PM

bob

you would be surprised at what i learned while away.
i have been reading some of the post yesterday and see you are still trying to prop up DR Spitz's guess work testimony to support
your agenda. imo
martin II

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob

you would be surprised at what i learned while away.
i have been reading some of the post yesterday and see you are still trying to prop up DR Spitz's guess work testimony to support
your agenda. imo
martin II

martin II, prop up Dr. Spitz's guess work testimony to support my agenda? What the heck does that mean? Funny.

If you've learned anything new it sure isn't apparent yet.

bobaugust

limakey

09-16-2006, 11:49 PM

If I remember correctly, OJ was talking about moving to Florida before the murders. In fact, I think even Cora told him that he should move and take Nicole and the kids with him.

2L8 4A D8

09-17-2006, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Hey, where you been? We wondered when your parole hearing was scheduled! :eek: :D

Netta must have needed a vacation. Martin II has been out lining up all his ducks in a row, so he doesn't have to put much thought into his Posts. It'll just be quick and easy: FBG - BAM! Bobaugust - BAM! Socaldiva - BAM! 2L8 4A D8 - BAM!, and all the other "G's" on the Board, etc., et al.

JMO and MOO!!

:chicken:

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by martin II

weezer
I expected that comment from you. However No parole for me. Only the good food and fun in Africa and Italy for the last several weeks for me.

I do see you are up to your old tricks though. hahahahahaha

Martin II Africa and Italy huh? Dang! Lucky you.

Old broad, old tricks -- what can I say?

martin II

09-18-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by limakey
If I remember correctly, OJ was talking about moving to Florida before the murders. In fact, I think even Cora told him that he should move and take Nicole and the kids with him.

limakey

i think Cora also told Nicole that she should consider moving her family to Florida with oj. imo

Martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey

i think Cora also told Nicole that she should consider moving her family to Florida with oj. imo

Martin II Of course, I don't know how much stock Nicole would have put in Cora's advise since it was Cora (IIRC) who was sleeping around with the stock boy/bag boy from the grocery store and trying to get Nicole to lie for her.

martin II

09-18-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Of course, I don't know how much stock Nicole would have put in Cora's advise since it was Cora (IIRC) who was sleeping around with the stock boy/bag boy from the grocery store and trying to get Nicole to lie for her.

fbg

do you believe Nicole was against women sleeping around???martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

do you believe Nicole was against women sleeping around???martin II I don't have a clue except Cora and her husband both testified that Nicole was upset with Cora for sleeping with the grocery boy and trying to get Nicole to lie for her. Also, there has not been any evidence/testimony that Nicole was 'with' anyone else while she and Orenthal were together. So, I would draw from what I know that she herself didn't do it but I'm not able to conclude how she felt about other women who did it.

martin II

09-18-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I don't have a clue except Cora and her husband both testified that Nicole was upset with Cora for sleeping with the grocery boy and trying to get Nicole to lie for her. Also, there has not been any evidence/testimony that Nicole was 'with' anyone else while she and Orenthal were together. So, I would draw from what I know that she herself didn't do it but I'm not able to conclude how she felt about other women who did it.

fbg

You MAY be correct about what she did not do while she and oj were togeather.
Grocery boy, Football player, Waiter. Does occupation have any thing to do with it?
Martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

You MAY be correct about what she did not do while she and oj were togeather.
Grocery boy, Football player, Waiter. Does occupation have any thing to do with it?
Martin II :confused:

martin II

09-18-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:confused:

FBG
You seem to identify Cora's friend as a Grocery Boy. I was wondering if a affair with a grocery boy was any different than a affair with say a person like Marcus Allen or a stranger one may have met in a Mexico resturant or a waiter from a local resturant?
Martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by martin II

FBG
You seem to identify Cora's friend as a Grocery Boy. I was wondering if a affair with a grocery boy was any different than a affair with say a person like Marcus Allen or a stranger one may have met in a Mexico resturant or a waiter from a local resturant?
Martin II I identified him that way because that's how he was identified during the trial and deposition -- I was simply jogging your memory.

martin II

09-18-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I identified him that way because that's how he was identified during the trial and deposition -- I was simply jogging your memory.

fbg
i remember it quite well but was asking if the grocery boy was any differtent in status than Marcua Allen, a local waiter or a stranger that was met in a resturant in MEXICO.
martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i remember it quite well but was asking if the grocery boy was any differtent in status than Marcua Allen, a local waiter or a stranger that was met in a resturant in MEXICO.
martin II I see your Africa/Italy (;) ) trip didn't take the obnoxious out of you. I hadn't thought about his status anymore than I thought about the actress, playboy playmate, stripper that Orenthal messed around with.

martin II

09-18-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I see your Africa/Italy (;) ) trip didn't take the obnoxious out of you. I hadn't thought about his status anymore than I thought about the actress, playboy playmate, stripper that Orenthal messed around with.

fbg
i see you are still into name calling.

my point is that one bedhopper is no worse or better than the next. Grocery boy, playboy plamates, football players, waiters.
It is all the same when people are bedhopping. imo
martin II

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i see you are still into name calling.

my point is that one bedhopper is no worse or better than the next. Grocery boy, playboy plamates, football players, waiters.
It is all the same when people are bedhopping. imo
martin II What does that have to do with Nicole? Or are you still into bashing the victim?

fbgweezer

09-18-2006, 05:41 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
i see you are still into name calling. Who am I calling names?

nettathirty

09-18-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Who am I calling names?

fbg,

You are always name calling...

martin II

09-18-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
What does that have to do with Nicole? Or are you still into bashing the victim?

fbg
speaking the truth is never bashing.
martin II

2L8 4A D8

10-06-2006, 03:46 AM

The following Post is from another Board and I completely agree with the Poster. However, I am sure that certain Posters will disagree because the "truth does hurt!"

JMO and MOO!!
Originally posted by rashomon

Fascinating how all these perps seem to have their personal fan club. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is which points to their idol, they will repeat mantra-like, the same messages over and over again. Maybe this is a form of magic thinking, and they believe if they repeat it often enough, it will work and convince people.

<Snipped> pointed out the MO of those people (you come across them in every true crime forum where circumstantial evidence cases are being discussed):

- they fanatically stick to message
- they deliberately ignore the evidence ('ignorance is bliss')
- and when at a loss for arguments, they start personal attacks.

martin II

10-06-2006, 04:25 AM

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

Hass

can you describe exactly what a jury of his peers should have looked like in both trials?
martin II

martin II

10-06-2006, 04:44 AM

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

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

fbg

if you do a little research i think you will find that a large majority of civil judgements against defendants are never paidf in the u.s.

Smaller and larger civil judgements are issued against people all the time and the majority are never paid.

so yes many people get away without paying these judgements by taking advantage of various laws. One only had to know which laws give protection.

regardless of what others may think a person SHOULD do with their money in a judgement case, very few are willing to give up all of their assets if there is a legal way to avoid it.
martin II

martin II

10-06-2006, 05:10 AM

fbg

some have personalized their opinion saying oj should pay the judgement.

example

Would you volunteer to give all of your assets ( your home and bank accounts etc) to a judgement creditor for $30 mil or so if a judgement was issed against you in a civli trial that you felt you were wrongly found laible, if this would leave your family broke with no way to survive?

Or would you take advantage of legal means available to you to avoid paying this judgement?

martin II

martin II

10-06-2006, 05:14 AM

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

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

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

cornblossom

maby you need to read the description of the VOTING civil trial members again. no blacks voted.

not many people know that the jury of ones peers is not in the constitution.
martin II

fbgweezer

10-06-2006, 10:53 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
if you do a little research i think you will find that a large majority of civil judgements against defendants are never paidf in the u.s. I don't know what the statistics are so I'm not debating your statement -- I do, however, doubt that many people get out of paying judgments simply because "you felt you were wrongly found laible"

martin II

10-06-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* I don't know what the statistics are so I'm not debating your statement -- I do, however, doubt that many people get out of paying judgments simply because "you felt you were wrongly found laible"

fbg

They get out of paying judgements by doing what oj did hide money by using legal means available to them
martin II

martin II

10-07-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* I don't know what the statistics are so I'm not debating your statement -- I do, however, doubt that many people get out of paying judgments simply because "you felt you were wrongly found laible"

fbg

it is my opinion that most people found liable with a judgement of 30MIL attatched would say they were not liable and that the award was excessive.
martin II

EDDIEisMINE

10-07-2006, 10:09 PM

The thing that has always got me is how he ran from the police that evening, and they followed him around. What was he running from if he didn't do anything? Why wouldn't he stop? Why would he run from the law if his wife had been murdered?
If someone murdered one of my family members, would I go out into my car and take off? No, of course not! I would stay put so they could do their job and we could try to put the peices together. I think OJ either did this alone or someone else did it with him, but, whatever, he is guilty and I can't believe his children would live with him. I guess coming from a family where my father was verbally abusive to my mother, If she ended up hurt, I would not want to be with him if I thought he did it. I couldn't do that to my mom.

limakey

10-08-2006, 12:30 AM

Eddie,

Apparently Sydney Simpson made a connection between her mother's murder and what she heard that night. We don't know what Sydney remembers from that night, however, there was a picture of her in one of the magazines writing the word "not" over the guilties signs left on the fence at Rockingham.

It appears to me that Sydney was very close to her mother and IMO, if she believed her father was guilty, she would not have "agreed" to live with her father. While many parents try to be very discreet regarding their private lives, it doesn't mean that children don't observe certain behaviors or over hear a conversation they were never meant to hear. IMO.

As for Simpson taking off in the Bronco, there was always much made of the fact the DA's never used it in the criminal trial--there
has to be a reason for it and it could lie within the tapes that were made during the Bronco ride that were never released.

IMO, while I do not believe that Mr. Simpson is guilty of the murders, I can understand him taking a guilt ride. If what Cora has said is true, then he was warned Nicole was in danger and he did nothing about it. He also knew that, IMO, his being unfaithful is what really ended their marriage--and that Nicole, no matter how much she loved him would never be able to forget it.

Another point, Mr. Simpson did address this question that makes sense---he said that he was learning all the "evidence" that was found on his property and as you know, the first media reports were so far off that if Mr. Simpson was the killer, he would have been laughing his butt off.

There is another thread here on "acting guilty or acting innocent". It is amazing to realize that where one poster sees nothing but guilty, another equally impressive argument is made for "innocence". I think you might enjoy it that thread. IMO.

Eddie, while we all know if a child is murdered, the parents are first on the suspect list. If my child was murdered, I know I would at the top of the list--even if just to eliminate me as a suspect. Even knowing that the police have start close to home and then branch out in their investigation, it would still crushs me to even being asked if I had anything to do with the death of my child. I dont' know if I would every recover from anyone thinking I hurt my child.

fbgweezer

10-08-2006, 02:33 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by limakey
As for Simpson taking off in the Bronco, there was always much made of the fact the DA's never used it in the criminal trial--there has to be a reason for it and it could lie within the tapes that were made during the Bronco ride that were never released.
the tapes from the ride weren't used because LE felt that orenthal made so many self-serving statements. I personally thought the exclusion of it was a mistake since it was Lange on the tapes begging orenthal not to hurt himself. The transcripts of the tapes were released -- I do not know about the audio version.

fbgweezer

10-08-2006, 02:35 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by limakey
IMO, while I do not believe that Mr. Simpson is guilty of the murders, I can understand him taking a guilt ride. If what Cora has said is true, then he was warned Nicole was in danger and he did nothing about it. He also knew that, IMO, his being unfaithful is what really ended their marriage--and that Nicole, no matter how much she loved him would never be able to forget it.
Nicole wrote in her diary -- or maybe it was in the letter to orenthal -- that she never loved him the same after the last beating. I believe his guilt ride was exactly that -- he was guilty of the murders of two people and he thought he'd been caught.

martin II

10-08-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Nicole wrote in her diary -- or maybe it was in the letter to orenthal -- that she never loved him the same after the last beating. I believe his guilt ride was exactly that -- he was guilty of the murders of two people and he thought he'd been caught.

fbg
is that the letter where she wrote oj I WANT TO COME HOME . I WILL LOVE YOU FOREVER.? IMO
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-08-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* the tapes from the ride weren't used because LE felt that orenthal made so many self-serving statements. I personally thought the exclusion of it was a mistake since it was Lange on the tapes begging orenthal not to hurt himself. The transcripts of the tapes were released -- I do not know about the audio version.

WRONG

OJ made no statements during the ride that would give one any reason to think that he had killed anyone so the prosecution decided that it was of no use the them imo

martin II

2L8 4A D8

10-08-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by limakey

Eddie,

Apparently Sydney Simpson made a connection between her mother's murder and what she heard that night. We don't know what Sydney remembers from that night, however, there was a picture of her in one of the magazines writing the word "not" over the guilties signs left on the fence at Rockingham.

What magazine was that? The National Enquirer? Yeah, they're reputable and credible all right! If this so-called picture does exist, what did you expect Sydney to do when seeing Guilty signs "left on the fence at Rockingham?" She did what any other 9 year old would have done and wrote the word "not" over the signs!

<snipped>

There is another thread here on "acting guilty or acting innocent". It is amazing to realize that where one poster sees nothing but guilty, another equally impressive argument is made for "innocence". I think you might enjoy it that thread. IMO.

IMO, a "guilty" argument is just as "impressive" as an "innocent" argument!

<snipped>

Keep on working it, Limakey!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

10-09-2006, 12:07 AM

2Late,

Hey, you better watch out---the tabloids earned a ton of praise during the trial--even after printing topless photos of Nicole and Marcia Clark. The picture was in I think Time or Newsweek.

I don't know what I would have expected Sydney to do if I didn't know some of the comments she made that night. However, I would give her or any child a tremendous amount credit for even walking outside their door to confront the people and the signs that were left on the gate.

I truly believe both sides have made impressive observations on both sides. The thread did get side tracked but I stand by my post---where one sees guilt, another can see innocence. And not just in this case. IMO.

How is it going?

limakey

10-09-2006, 12:14 AM

Martin,

I agree with you that OJ must have made several statements that went more to his innocence then to his guilt and that is why the DA's never used the Bronco ride.

However, there is one comment that OJ made that caught me off guard and it made me wonder. The comment was that he was the only one who deserved to be hurt. Was it because he took off? Because Nicole was murdered and he did nothing to stop it? Or that he did it so he was intent on committing suicide--even by cop.

I have often wondered if the DA's didn't use it because of the letters that OJ wrote to his children, the comments he made to his mother or what other comments he made to other people he called.

The talking heads nailed the DA's on this issue, saying that the fact that OJ Simpson pled innocent is about as much as a self serving statement you can give--and I agree with that, so why didn't the DA's use it, in your opinon?

martin II

10-09-2006, 07:28 AM

limaley

no one knows why the da did not use the bronco tape but the DA and i don't remember reading their exapination as to why they did not use it.

initially my first thought was that he was running because he was guity but when pieces of his actions and telephone conversations and AC report of his talk with oj in the bronco were made public i saw more of a distraught person confused about what to do.

he was about to be arrested, he wanted to go to nicoles grave, he may have had thoughts of running and with AC'S help decided that this was not possible and then it was just a matter
of AC getting him to 'Come back to his senses and give up.

i believe that oj knew that faye had caused bad people to come to nicoles house, maby because nicole had told him. It may be that he did feel guilty after her death that he had not done more to protect her if she was in danger. just before she was murdered oj and nicole were after each other (irs stuff) and maby after she was murdered he felt that he was wrong for giving her a hard time on that issue since she was now dead.

under some circumstances if a person is about to commit suicide
based on the fact that he was guilty i would expect him to admit his guilty in the suicide letter but he didn't.

to get back to your question, i feel that if there had been anything in the bronco conversations or oj's actions (in the tape)
that was useful to the da in the trial they would have used it, the fact that they didn't, leads me to believe that they thought that the tape would be useful to the defense. all my opinions
martin II

bobaugust

10-09-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by martin II

he was about to be arrested, he wanted to go to nicoles grave, he may have had thoughts of running and with AC'S help decided that this was not possible and then it was just a matter
of AC getting him to 'Come back to his senses and give up.

martin II, your speculations are contradicted by what Schiller wrote about this situation in his book.

Simpson was staying at Kardashian's house when his attorneys told him he was to be arrested and had to turn himself over to the police by 11:00 AM. Simpson prepared by making a tape recording of how he was feeling, made telephone calls, and wrote letters and went then through hurried physical testing by physicians as it got close to 11:00.

Simpson had gotten his gun and he was with Kardasian telling him he was going to kill himself. They walked to different places around the outside of Kardashian's house while Simpson was tying to find the right place to do it but Kardashian was able to talk him out of each place stalling him until Cowlings arrived. Kardashian suggested to Simpson he should commit suicide off Kardashian's property. Cowling suggest Simpson do it at the Bel Air Church, since Simpson was married there and once lived across the street from the church. Simpson argued.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

10-09-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

Hey, you better watch out---the tabloids earned a ton of praise during the trial--even after printing topless photos of Nicole and Marcia Clark. The picture was in I think Time or Newsweek.

Time and Newsweek are not tabloids. I was talking National Enquirer or The Star Magazine.

I don't know what I would have expected Sydney to do if I didn't know some of the comments she made that night. However, I would give her or any child a tremendous amount credit for even walking outside their door to confront the people and the signs that were left on the gate.

First you state, "I don't know what I would have expected Sydney to do if I didn't know some of the comments she made that night." Then you state, "We don't know what Sydney remembers from that night..."

So which is it Limakey? Either you "know" or you "don't know!" Enlighten me, what are "some of the comments she made that night?"

JMO and MOO!!

<snipped>

limakey

10-09-2006, 11:42 PM

2Late,

Sydney did hear her mother and her best friend fighting and her mother crying. She linked the two together. She knew something terrible had happened and that is the reason her mother wasn't coming to get her.

IMO, I think she was the logical start of the timeline. As you know, there have been questions if Nicole was expecting someone that night, or if she was going out. Sydney may have very well had the answers to these questions.

I would truly love to know Sydney's opinon on some of her mother's "best friends", especially Faye. As well as what she thought about her parents' relationship. There is no doubt that OJ and Nicole were at odds with each other at that time, however, it does appear that both of them were able to call a truce for events involving their children. IMO.

2L8 4A D8

10-10-2006, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

Sydney did hear her mother and her best friend fighting and her mother crying. She linked the two together. She knew something terrible had happened and that is the reason her mother wasn't coming to get her.

When did Sydney "hear her mother and her best friend fighting and her mother crying?" Was this before or after OJ called and asked to talk to Sydney?

Sydney couldn't have possibly "linked the two together and knew something terrible had happened and that is the reason her mother wasn't coming to get her." Just speculation on your part, unless you can produce a link or something to substantiate your comments. Sydney was only 9, not 19!

IMO, I think she was the logical start of the timeline. As you know, there have been questions if Nicole was expecting someone that night, or if she was going out. Sydney may have very well had the answers to these questions.

Sydney and Justin were found sound asleep by LE. How could she be "the logical start of the timeline?" Hello, Nicole was expecting Ron Goldman that night. How would Sydney have "had the answers to these questions?"

I would truly love to know Sydney's opinon on some of her mother's "best friends", especially Faye. As well as what she thought about her parents' relationship. There is no doubt that OJ and Nicole were at odds with each other at that time, however, it does appear that both of them were able to call a truce for events involving their children. IMO.

I doubt that being 9 years old that Sydney had any opinions whatsoever (1) "of her mother's 'best friends,' especially Faye; and (2) "her parents' relationship." And if she did, what relevance would it have to her Father's double-murder case?

I think that ALL of us at some point in our relationship(s) have called "a truce for events involving our children." It is a given when you have children and nothing new IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

10-10-2006, 10:54 PM

2Late,

I think that children do get the same bad vibes about people that adults do, might not be able to express why, but then again, there are adults who get the same feelings and can't express it. Like the old saying, "There is something about this person that I don't trust or can't put their finger on why they don't like this person.

According Nicole's good friends, they were all concerned about the changes in Nicole--don's you think her children may have noticed the change sin her?

The reason why I believe that Sydney is the logical and perhaps the most accurate timeline witness---what time did she go to bed?
What time did she hear her mother and the fighting over the phone?

Another point, what did she overhear? Was she able to make out any words? Did she go to her mother to try to find out what was wrong? It appears to me that Nicole was close to her children. She was always the super mom, always fun to be around--it only makes sense to me that Sydney would have gone to her mother to try to find out what was wrong.

IMO.

2L8 4A D8

10-11-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I think that children do get the same bad vibes about people that adults do, might not be able to express why, but then again, there are adults who get the same feelings and can't express it. Like the old saying, "There is something about this person that I don't trust or can't put their finger on why they don't like this person.

According Nicole's good friends, they were all concerned about the changes in Nicole--don's you think her children may have noticed the change sin her?

The reason why I believe that Sydney is the logical and perhaps the most accurate timeline witness---what time did she go to bed?
What time did she hear her mother and the fighting over the phone?

Another point, what did she overhear? Was she able to make out any words? Did she go to her mother to try to find out what was wrong? It appears to me that Nicole was close to her children. She was always the super mom, always fun to be around--it only makes sense to me that Sydney would have gone to her mother to try to find out what was wrong.

IMO.

At 9 freaking years old? I don't think so. Maybe if she was 19 at the time, but she wasn't.

Dream on Limakey!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

10-11-2006, 08:22 PM

2Late,

When I got a phone call from home regarding my parent who had less then 48 hours to live, I was home alone with my then 4 year old son. I got the news, I went into the bathroom and I just cried, I didn't want my son to see me or hear me cry. The next thing I know, I feel his arms around me and kept kissing my head and repeated the words I told him over and over again when he was crying and upset, "it will be okay, I love you". It amazed me that he remembered how to open the door with a key that was hardly ever used and in a drawer.

When he and his father took me to the airport, he told his father to go and pull up the car and he would be right out---then he told the lady at the ticket counter that he had to go with me because my daddy was dying and he wanted to help me if I started crying again---he never saw or heard me cry before.

2Late, our children know us much better then we think they do. In today's world, it is almost impossible to be a kid for long. Do you truly believe that if one of your children heard you crying and were upset they would not try to comfort you or go to their brothers or sisters and try to find out what is going on?

What do you think Sydney thought of when she was woken up and her brother were woken up and carried out of the house, with a number of police officers trying to block their view of the crime scene? Don't you think she knew something was wrong? And according to what has been written, Sydney did keep calling her mother's home and there was no answer. It was Sydney who said that she knew something terrible had happened and that is why her mother wasn't coming to pick her up. I believe that was in Jeff Toobin's book.

I truly believe most parents do try to keep their private lives private, however, our kids aren't idiots. They know when something is up, either good or bad. I believe Nicole was very close to her daughter and it appears to me that Sydney is a bright young girl. And there is no evidence to even suggest that Nicole had the "I want to be my child's friend first" view of parenting.

IMO, I think that as parents, we have all said or did something in front of children that we wish never said or did. I compare it to the old saying, "You can't watch your child 24 hours a day"--and I know that is true, but I'll tell you, it doesn't mean that I have ever stopped trying!

2L8 4A D8

10-11-2006, 09:28 PM

Limakey:

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I am very skeptical and I would have to see and hear Sydney being interviewed. What your child did and what my child or another child would do are two completely different things to me, sorry!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

10-12-2006, 11:53 PM

2Late,

I'm not sure, what are you doubting, that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting with her "best friend"?

IMO, if Sydney took the stand and testified against her father, you probably would be making the same arguement that I'm making now. You would not blame her age for her testimony, you would say that she knew the difference between her mother's crying and giggling (according to Faye Resnick).

The topic of this thread is how can Sydney and Justin live with that man. IMO, they have first hand knowledge of their parents on several levels--therefore they both feel that they know their father is innocent, so there is no problem living with him.

Again, IMO.

2L8 4A D8

10-13-2006, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

I'm not sure, what are you doubting, that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting with her "best friend"?

I am not doubting anything. Sydney did know the difference between her Mother crying and fighting with her best friend! And, as you state, "Sydney did hear her mother and her best friend fighting and her mother crying. She linked the two together." This is about the only thing that we agree on!

IMO, if Sydney took the stand and testified against her father, you probably would be making the same arguement that I'm making now. You would not blame her age for her testimony, you would say that she knew the difference between her mother's crying and giggling (according to Faye Resnick).

You don't know what I would say or think about anything. Just speculation on your part ~ which is wrong, as usual!

<snipped>

IMO, they have first hand knowledge of their parents on several levels--therefore they both feel that they know their father is innocent, so there is no problem living with him.

Again, IMO.

Uh huh! What else was Sydney and Justin going to do, as their Dad wouldn't let them stay with the Browns? Were they supposed to live on the streets in one of Daddy's cars? No, they had to do what their Dad wanted in order to be taken care of ~ whether they liked it or not as they didn't have a choice in the matter because they were too young!

As to their current situation, it is only speculation on everyone's part of what they truly feel about their Mother's murder and their Dad's guilt or innocence. They're not talking and their Dad probably wouldn't let them make any comments one way or the other anyway!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

10-13-2006, 05:49 PM

Didn't know where to put this.

Has anybody noticed that we are now 3rd from the bottom of the Crime Library Message Boards? In the beginning, we were at the Top; then it was in the Middle; now we are at the Bottom. What's going to happen to the OJ Simpson Board when they add more Boards to the CLMB? We only need 3. Do we get dropped off into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again? LOL!

No big deal. Just curious and I also wanted to interject a little "things that make you go hmmm" that's all! :D

P.S. I am sure that they will archive other Boards so that we won't drop off into oblivion! :tongue:

limakey

10-13-2006, 10:37 PM

2Late,

Simpson made arrangements with his daughter to take the children to the Browns' ASAP. She was to call AC to help her with this.

IMO, this a sign of innocence because he had no idea what his daughter and/or son or heard that night. He had no way of knowing when the bodies were discovered and what had been found---in other words, he had idea if it was even Sydney or Justin who called 911. He had no idea if the police had questioned them or was he aware of any comments the kids made that the police had focused on.

He also still allowed the children to go the Browns' even after Denise accused him of the murders--before he even landed back in LA.

I agree with you that the children had no choice on where they were going to stay, it was their father's choice. However, OJ Simpson did have the means and support of his family to have the children reside in LA until after the trial.

Both the children were seen by shrinks, etc., don't you think that had the children made damning comments about their father, that they would have at least made into the media?

If you remember correctly, all the comments in the books had focused on the fact that they didn't hear or see the actuals murders. Well we know they were sleeping, but what did they hear before that?

2L8 4A D8

10-13-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

Simpson made arrangements with his daughter to take the children to the Browns' ASAP. She was to call AC to help her with this.

IMO, this a sign of innocence because he had no idea what his daughter and/or son or heard that night. He had no way of knowing when the bodies were discovered and what had been found---in other words, he had idea if it was even Sydney or Justin who called 911. He had no idea if the police had questioned them or was he aware of any comments the kids made that the police had focused on.

He also still allowed the children to go the Browns' even after Denise accused him of the murders--before he even landed back in LA.

I agree with you that the children had no choice on where they were going to stay, it was their father's choice. However, OJ Simpson did have the means and support of his family to have the children reside in LA until after the trial.

I am talking about dragging the kids to Florida instead of letting them live with the Browns. They both seemed settled and happy there with their maternal Grandparents, their Aunts and Cousin(s), etc.

Both the children were seen by shrinks, etc., don't you think that had the children made damning comments about their father, that they would have at least made into the media?

Again, I don't think that the kids made any comments one way or the other about their Dad's guilt or innocence because of their ages. You seem to think that they just spilled their guts and all of their feelings to anybody who would listen. I disagree.

If you remember correctly, all the comments in the books had focused on the fact that they didn't hear or see the actuals murders. Well we know they were sleeping, but what did they hear before that?

Again, it would be pure speculation on all of us as to what they heard before they went to bed. Do you know what Sydney and OJ talked about when he called her? I don't!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

10-14-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I agree with you that the children had no choice on where they were going to stay, it was their father's choice. However, OJ Simpson did have the means and support of his family to have the children reside in LA until after the trial.

limakey,

OJ could have taken his children to his own family (Eunice), and kept them from Denise and her family... That goes to show, the character of OJ Simpson.. He allowed Syndey and Justin to go be with the Browns, knowing full well that some members of the Brown's family weren't being totally honest with what they knew!

IMO... MOO.. JMHO

limakey

10-14-2006, 11:58 PM

2Late,

You are mistaken if you believe the children were happy and settled at the Browns. There was a legal guardian that was appointed to the children---I can't remember their offical name. However, it was this person's job to find out what was the best for the children. The Browns' home was not the best place for the children. They were anything but settled there.

I believe in one of the interviews OJ gave he said that Sydney has nothing to do with her aunts and when she goes to LA, she doesn't stay with the Browns that much, she stays with friends.

Justin stays with the Browns because he is close to his male cousins, I think both Denise and Dominique have sons about the same age as Justin.

I never said the children spilled their guts to anyone and/or everyone they met. I was talking about the comments that Sydney and Justin made once they were taken out of the house and were at the police station for, what, 5 hours?

It is not speculation that Sydney heard her mother crying and fighting with her best friend. And if you think about it, Sydney must have know who that best friend was or she asked her mother who she was fighting with and her mother told it was her "best friend".

OJ called the house, he first asked if Sydney was in bed and then asked to speak to her. While OJ and Nicole were not on speaking terms, Nicole did call Sydney to the phone and he said he talked to her about her dancing. IMO, this again supports that while OJ and Nicole were odds, Nicole didn't lie or do anything petty, she turned the phone over to her daughter.

IMO, I believe the children were "questioned" several times, but in a very mild manner. Never in a million years could you convince that the police believed because of their ages, they had nothing valuable to say about that night.

Chris Daren said the DA's wanted to question children but the Browns refused to have them questioned. However, it doesn't mean the police did not have access or were told some of the comments that they said.

However, IMO, I think the most important question that was "asked" in a round about way, was the blood drops that were found. If Sydney and/or Justin didn't see those blood drops the before the murders---case over.

However, if they did see those blood drops before the murders, then case over for the DA's--IMO.

limakey

10-15-2006, 12:01 AM

Netta,

I agree with your post. However, I would like to take it one step further---OJ Simpson knew the pain of losing a child. He also knew that the children were the best part of Nicole and that at least the Browns had the children to focus on and help them deal with Nicole's death. It is always easier to focus on something then your own pain when it comes to death---IMO.

martin II

10-15-2006, 08:26 AM

I believe oj paid the browns $10,000 a month to allow the kids to live with them when he was in jail even though Denise was screeming that oj killed Nicole.

After he was found not guilty in the criminal trial and some in the LA commuity turned against him, even some neighbors, he decided that LA was not the place to raise his kids.

there had been some talk by OJ and Nicole about moving to Florida even before the murders.

oj also knew that fred and the browns were planning to sue him
in civil court.

Oj did love his kids and they him so it would make no sense at all for him to give his kids to the browns, pay them to keep them and move to Florida alone.

Sydney is in school in Boston, justin is in high school in Florida (playing football)and both seem to be doing quite well. So it seems to me that oJ has turned out to be a great father for these kids and his decision to remove his kids from the hate mongers and la media was a good one for the benefits of the kids.imo

i wonder how many here would give their kids to someone because some people belive that one had killed their mother.

martin II

martin II

10-15-2006, 08:37 AM

netta

if my memory serves me correctly in the civil trial, the money judgement to be received by the browns from oj would go into nicoles estate which was controlled by Lou Brown and would be for the benefit of the children.

so the browns wanted to strip oj of all his money and his ability to support the kids by paying them directly as a result of the judgement and then they would control the money in the Nicole
Simpson estate to 'SUPPORT" the kids and what ever else they wanted to support.

I think the browns had the same motive as fred in the civil trial. GET RICH. imo

i see no reason why he would leave these kids with these people.

martin II

martin II

10-15-2006, 10:12 AM

limakey

i had forgotton about the guradian appointed by the court to determine if the kids should live with the browns.

i think his report stated that the atmosphere in the browns house was too hostile and negative (maby because of Denise) for the kids to live there and the court acted on his report.imo

additionally courts always give the children to the surviving parent
so i don't see why some expected a different outcome in this case. imo
martin II

martin II

10-15-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by sassylassy
the children were on the cover of life???
why would you do that to the children.

the worst was seeing them on that loser geroldos show backstage, just because u r caring 4 them doesnt mean u can parade them around like a freak show.

bad move on the brown family.imo.:flamemad:

sassylassy

i agree. the browns did seem to make bad decisions when i came
to the Media. Didn't someone in that family sell some family pictures to a tabloid. were they pictures of Nicole i am not sure?
martin II

limakey

10-15-2006, 10:41 PM

Martin and Netta,

If I remember correctly, it was Sharon Rufo who filed the first civil suit, then the Goldmans' and then the Browns. I believe it was OJ who through his lawyers told the Browns that they had better file a suit because if they didn't, then the Goldmans' would get everything. I believe the Browns waited until the last day to file the suit.

I also think that OJ Simpson did tell the Browns that the media can be the ultimate seducers, while they always say they want to get "the real story" out---they don't, they want to sell their own agendas.

When Dominique went before the court to explain why she sold the pictures, she said it was done for the children. While as nuts as this sounds, I believe her. I often have wondered how the media knew about the pictures and why did they publish them?

While many of us may say that we would never do such a thing, just think about this, what if you were given two choices and you picked what you felt was the lessor of two evils? There is alot about Nicole and Ron that people, including their families did everything they could to protect their reputations. IMO, the sister, picked the lessor of two evils.