Before I get started... [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by ojisinnocent
Group (especially Bob August):

Before I jumps back in this discussion, I really and truly want to know one thng: What motivates you G's?

I mean, unless you go into some nutty private rvenge trip, then OJ has been punished as much as he can be.

We NG'a at least have a tinay hypothetical [ssibilityh that OJ can be exonerated and the true killer brought to justice.

but what's in it for youG's?

John, the only thing that's in it for most of us is the truth.

The fact is that there is no doubt that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That happens to be the truth of these murders. If posters who for what ever reason want to believe in Simpson's innocence that's their right no matter how naive and gullible they are. But when these posters post outright wrong opinions based on false and misinformation about the facts and evidence in this case on this discussion group, we correct them and point out why they are wrong. After they learn that everything they believe is not true yet still cling to their beliefs, that's their problem not ours.

Anyone who bothers to learn the actual facts and evidence in this case, this entire case including the many depositions and the civil trial testimony where Simpson lied his butt off, understands the truth of what he did.

In your particular case tying to argue that Kato Kaelin was the killer is based only on imagination. Your imagined scenario fails just as every "other killer" scenario fails when confronted with the known facts and evidence. Kato Kaelin had neither the means, opportunity, or the motive to commit these murders. Not only is there not one single shred of evidence that points to Kaelin, he had an airtight alibi. At the time Ron and Nicole were killed, Kato Kaelin was in his room talking on his telephone.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

We correct them and point out why they are wrong.

bobaugust

August,

You've done NO such thing....

limakey

08-17-2006, 09:59 PM

X-Rich,

There are people who believe OJ is guilty but the verdict was correct.

There are people who believe the evidence was played with but it shouldn't have mattered, he should have been convicted.

There are people who believe he is innocent of the crimes.

There are people who believe that he might be innocent, not sure, but can't say guilty either.

Some G's have been honest on the criminal trial verdict, they have no problem with it because of the case, there are some who believe that it didn't matter if the jurors thought evidence was planted, there was plenty of other evidence to focus on.

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by limakey
X-Rich,

There are people who believe the verdict was correct.

There are people who believe the evidence was played with

There are people who believe he is innocent of the crimes.

limakey, "Alex Trebeck- Jeopardy"

Who is Nettathiry, Alex?

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

There are also people who believed the moon landing was faked and the WWF is real.

There were just as many thought the Ramseys' killed their daughter!

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder
To all you pro OJ folks, on what do you base his innocence? The fact that a jury found him not guilty? That happens all the time and juries are often wrong. Look at all the people that have gotten off on DNA evidence. Or is that just voodoo?

It's not the juries who get it wrong, it is "BAD PROSECUTION" withholding evidence!

Simpsonese

08-17-2006, 11:55 PM

Simpson hate exists because of the media conspired hate built onto him by the confused LA DA's office and "victom predators" who tried to use the murder as a self-promoting product.

There also is the "betrayal" part of it, as Simpson had this fairytale image of this standup guy living the American dream. OJ helped further this image along as it drew him big $$$$$. Just because you bought into the mob....er DA's sob storyline of OJ's hollywood life and victomless victom's, let the hate go, move on. It is sad the rage still exists and if found unfounded, lost years never to be found again.

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

You've done NO such thing....

nettathirty, sure we have and you're one of the posters I was referring to. You continually post your opinion based on false or misinformation. And we continually correct you and point out why you are wrong.

bobaugust

Kayleighjo

08-18-2006, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

You've done NO such thing....

Ah, yeah he is ... in fact you're one of the people he corrects the most because you're wrong about so much so often.

Kayleighjo

08-18-2006, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

Hey, OJ's in the house. Hi OJ! Kill anybody lately? Hey, in all fairness, it does sound like a plan perpetrated by the man to keep a brother down.:seeya:

:beer: :beer:

Martyrdom

08-18-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

It's not the juries who get it wrong, it is "BAD PROSECUTION" withholding evidence!

Juries sure as heck do get it wrong and sometimes it's based on bad presentation on the sides of both the prosecution and defense.

Wow, were you on trial for a crime at some point in time and got screwed? Because you sure like to bash prosecuting attorneys across the board. According to you, they are all out to set up innocent people wrongfully accused of crimes.

Dang, your something else.

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, sure we have and you're one of the posters I was referring to. You continually post your opinion based on false or misinformation. And we continually correct you and point out why you are wrong.

bobaugust

August,

You have got to be kidding, you have yet to come up with any FACTS to support how a "WIDE OPEN GATE" was slammed...

The minute I bring up the timeline and the actuals crime scene, you flipflop like a Presidential Candidate..

You have NO ideal if the gloves found were from the killer or someone else.

You G's can't agree if the murder was planned or a rage killing..

August, you are so bold as to say the witnesses who heard the 10:15p dog barking was wrong! WTH are you talking, are you that full of yourself!

Your stellar witness (in the alley across the street) seemed to hear things, Nicoles immediate neighbors did not hear, and we ALL KNOW they were home and some just laid down to bed...

Correct if I'm wrong!

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Martyrdom

Juries sure as heck do get it wrong and sometimes it's based on bad presentation on the sides of both the prosecution and defense.

Wow, were you on trial for a crime at some point in time and got screwed? Because you sure like to bash prosecuting attorneys across the board. According to you, they are all out to set up innocent people wrongfully accused of crimes.

Dang, your something else.

Md,

This is the only board and case I post on, out of all the Court TV cases.. More evidence of poor comprehension on your part!

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

*Snipped*

It was a planned killing with plenty of rage. .

So, can I put you down for undecided! :lol:

fbgweezer

08-18-2006, 05:25 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Correct if I'm wrong! Oh, let me! Let me!

You're wrong.

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

You have got to be kidding, you have yet to come up with any FACTS to support how a "WIDE OPEN GATE" was slammed...

The minute I bring up the timeline and the actuals crime scene, you flipflop like a Presidential Candidate..

You have NO ideal if the gloves found were from the killer or someone else.

You G's can't agree if the murder was planned or a rage killing..

August, you are so bold as to say the witnesses who heard the 10:15p dog barking was wrong! WTH are you talking, are you that full of yourself!

Your stellar witness (in the alley across the street) seemed to hear things, Nicoles immediate neighbors did not hear, and we ALL KNOW they were home and some just laid down to bed...

Correct if I'm wrong!

nettathirty, you're wrong.

The fact is that the front gate at Bundy was found open. I've already suggested a realistic possibility as to how that could have happened based on the fact that Heidstra heard the gate slam. People with more life experience than you who are familiar with metal gates and how they can be slammed so hard that they bounce back open instead of latching understand what I suggested. People like Judge Ito and defense attorney Douglas.

The problem is you, not us.

No, the time real time line of the murder doesn't change. Once again the problem is yours. You want to believe fantasies that have no factual evidence to support them and are contradicted by the testimony from the witnesses in this case.

Of course the gloves found were the killer's gloves. All of the fiber, hair, and blood evidence found on the gloves proves that.

I've always been consistent in my belief that the killing of Ron Goldman was a rage killing. That opinion is supported by the evidence of the over thirty cuts stabs and cuts on his body.

That's right I believe the two witnesses who were in their houses far removed from where Nicole's dog was when it started it's barking were mistaken about the estimated times they thought the barking started. Their estimated times are contradicted by the time estimates from five other witnesses who were outside at that time and never heard any barking.

Heidstra heard things outside on that quiet still night that no other witness inside their house with televisions on heard. That's really not hard to comprehend. It's a fact in this case and a reality of life. Nicole's immediate neighbor was Eva Stein and she was sleeping at the time of the murders only awakened when she heard dogs barking.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Nicole's immediate neighbor was Eva Stein and she was sleeping at the time of the murders only awakened when she heard dogs barking.

bobaugust

August,

If she was awaken by a barking dog, she should have heard the "hey hey hey" and (WIDE OPEN gate slam), because the dog started barking before the "hey hey hey" and (WIDE OPEN gate slam).. According to you! I'll give you a chance to tweek your last theory!

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

If she was awaken by a barking dog, she should have heard the "hey hey hey" and (WIDE OPEN gate slam), because the dog started barking before the "hey hey hey" and (WIDE OPEN gate slam).. According to you! I'll give you a chance to tweek your last theory!

nettathirty, no tweaking is necessary. Stein said she was awaken by barking dog(s) She said, "IT SOUNDED LIKE A FEW DOGS."

The only time more than one dog was barking was when Heidstra heard the voices and the gate slam. The two dogs continued to bark after that. Evidently that's when Stein was awaken.

Heidstra was a defense witness when he testified about this. He told the truth of what he heard. Eva Stein told what she heard. There is no evidence that Stein should have heard what Heidstra heard. She was sleeping in her bedroom in the back of her house, her window facing the alley. Heidstra was directly across from the front of Nicole's condo where Simpson, Goldman, and the front gate were.

The fact is that Heidstra heard the voices and the gate slam come from the front of Nicole's condo and Eva Stein did not hear any of that. Does that mean Heidstra never heard what he testified to? That he was lying? No. It only means that Eva Stein never heard it. All she heard were the loud dogs barking that eventually woke her up.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Does that mean Heidstra never heard what he testified to?

bobaugust

August,

It means Heidstra was either coached to say what he said, after Petrocelli studied the Criminal Trial testimony. or Heidstra was wrong in assuming the noises came from 875 Bundy, when Eva Stein was in a much better position to validate Heidstra's claim!

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

It means Heidstra was either coached to say what he said, after Petrocelli studied the Criminal Trial testimony. or Heidstra was wrong in assuming the noises came from 875 Bundy, when Eva Stein was in a much better position to validate Heidstra's claim!

nettathirty, again you show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Robert Heidstra testified to all of these facts as a defense witness in the criminal trial over a year before he testified to the exact same facts in the civil trial. If there was any coaching done it was done by Cochran.

Eva Stein was not in a better position to hear the voices. She was in the back of her house SLEEPING. What part of that can't you grasp?

Your claims are unsupported and false. But I understand why you make them. Your tactics are normal for people who deceive themselves and can not or will not accept the truth of these murders. You're not the first poster who resorts to calling a witness a liar or wrong because that witness's testimony contradicts your imagined fantasies and I doubt if you'll be the last. You have no choice, except to face reality and it's evident you're not up to that task.

bobaugust

ojisinnocent

08-18-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

John, the only thing that's in it for most of us is the truth.
{snip}
bobaugust

Bob:

Let me put it this way:

Let's say you prevailed in perusauding everyone of yo9ur views: WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?

Indeed, there is no doubt that the vast majority of people (in those extremely rare moments when they think of him any more) already agree with you.

Now, if I and other NG's were to prevail, OJ would be exonerated in the "court of public opinion", his civil trial judgment would be thrown out and the true killer would be hunted won.

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The comprehension problem seems to be yours. Marty did not say you posted on mulitple boards. Maybe that's the problem with this case for you, you don't absorb what you read. Although you did say you don't read books about the case & I doubt you read any transcripts. That's probably why you post so much information that is incorrect.

Socal,

Oh, please! She said I have a distrust for prosecution, and I asked how the heck can you say that when this is the only case on Court TV I posted on!

Save your spinning for yourself!

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Eva Stein was not in a better position to hear the voices. She was in the back of her house SLEEPING.

What part of that can't you grasp?

bobaugust

August,

Your saying, Eva Stein even though (DIRECTLY) next door to Nicole, because she was in the back of her house could not have heard the voices..

Yet, Heidstra across the street in the alley which is ALSO at the BACK of the house by another 20 to 30 feet from the BACK of the HOUSE, is more credible ..

You may be suffering from a Break Down, maybe!

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

HE asked if you were part of a trial yourself in which you got screwed, hence your mistrust of Prosecutors "across the board". To which you responded that this is the only board you post on. There was no spin on my part, just confusion on your part.

Socal,

Since I've only posted on this board about this case, and NO other cases be it personal or otherwise.. Then there was NO need for me to even entertain such "NONE SENSE"..

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Oh gawd. Ms Stein was ASLEEP , Heidstra was not. What is so complicated about that?

Socal,

She was NOT sleep, the barking dog woke her, first came the barking then the alledged "hey hey hey" and then the "WIDE OPEN gate slams"...

What trial did you read?

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Your saying, Eva Stein even though (DIRECTLY) next door to Nicole, because she was in the back of her house could not have heard the voices..

Yet, Heidstra across the street in the alley which is ALSO at the BACK of the house by another 20 to 30 feet from the BACK of the HOUSE, is more credible ..

You may be suffering from a Break Down, maybe!

nettathirty, you got your facts wrong again.

Heidstra was not in back of Nicole's house. He was in the alley behind the houses across the street from Nicole's house. Heidstra had a line of site to Nicole's roof because he was looking between the houses in front of him from a higher elevation then her house. If you removed the houses in front of him he would have had a direct line of sight to Nicole's front gate.

There were no enclosed walls between Heidstra and the sounds he heard on that still quiet night.

Eva Stein was sleeping in a room at the back of her house with a window facing the alley behind Nicole's house. And again she was sleeping. She was not awaken by the voices Heidstra heard that lasted only seconds or the slamming of Nicole's front gate that lasted only a second. She was insulated from those short lasting sounds by the walls of her house. She was awakened sometime later by the loud continuous barking of dogs.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Heidstra was not in back of Nicole's house. He was in the alley behind the houses across the street from Nicole's house.

She was awakened sometime later by the loud continuous barking of dogs.

bobaugust

August

.. Ms Stein was awaken by the dog she heard bark at 10:30p, that is her testimony and you've posted that several times. Heidstra was in the alley across the street, which separated him from 875 Bundy by a house and another 20ft... Stein's testimony makes her a better witness, she was closest to Nicoles' than Heidstra, this ain't that hard for you people grasp, or it should not be..

bobaugust

08-19-2006, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August

.. Ms Stein was awaken by the dog she heard bark at 10:30p, that is her testimony and you've posted that several times. Heidstra was in the alley across the street, which separated him from 875 Bundy by a house and another 20ft... Stein's testimony makes her a better witness, she was closest to Nicoles' than Heidstra, this ain't that hard for you people grasp, or it should not be..

nettathirty, once again you got the facts wrong and things backwards again.

Eva Stein never said she heard barking at 10:30. She initially told the police that she was awaken between 10:15 PM and 10:45 PM. She also said that she thought it was about a half an hour before Karpf got home and he told her he got home about 10:45.

The fact is that Stein never knew what time it was when she was awaken. But we know because she said she was awaken by barking dogs. Not one dog, but dogs. The fact is the only time a second dog started to bark was when Heidstra was in the alley opposite Nicole's condo listening to Nicole's dog barking. Just after the little black dog started to bark is when Heidstra heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

That was about 10:40 PM. and that was the barking that Stein eventually heard.

Stein was not a better witness than Heidstra . She was inside her house at the back of her condo, sleeping. Heidstra was outside just down the street from the barking dog. The fact is that Stein was most unreliable of all the witnesses who testified about this. She had no idea what time anything happened, she was sleeping and never looked at a clock or a watch.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Stein was not a better witness than Heidstra . She was inside her house at the back of her condo, sleeping. Heidstra was outside just down the street from the barking dog. The fact is that Stein was most unreliable of all the witnesses who testified about this. She had no idea what time anything happened, she was sleeping and never looked at a clock or a watch.

bobaugust

August,

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

This would be laughable, except for the fact that you 've convinced yourself it's true.. You know full well Stein was in a better position, but rather than admitting your wrong, you continue to LIE to yourself!

2L8 4A D8

08-26-2006, 03:07 AM

bobaugust

08-26-2006, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

This would be laughable, except for the fact that you 've convinced yourself it's true.. You know full well Stein was in a better position, but rather than admitting your wrong, you continue to LIE to yourself!

nettathirty, what is laughable is that you probably never even read Stein's testimony.

The fact is that Stein never heard any voices coming from Nicole's condo. That fact proves that Heidstra was in a better position to hear the voices because he did hear them and Stein didn't.

Here's a link to a drawing to scale from Wagner's web site showing Nicole's and the Stein/Karpf condos. See for yourself how far away Stein was in her bedroom at the back of her condo from the front of Nicole's condo and consider the reality that Stein was behind walls and sleeping or drowsing and it's very understandable why she never heard anything coming from the front of Nicole's condo that night.

Heidstra was about the same or a little further distance away from the front of Nicole's condo only he was outside, not inside a house, and directly opposite the front of Nicole's condo.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/curve/storfera.jpg

That's the reality of the evidence in this case despite your inability to comprehend it.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/curve/storfera.jpg

That's the reality of the evidence in this case despite your inability to comprehend it.

bobaugust

August,

The only reason, I put up with your insults is because I like you and kinda feel sorry for you... From the map, if you honestly think Heidstra was in a better position than Stein, heck I was in Texas and was in better position than Heidstra .. You need sympathy..

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

The only reason, I put up with your insults is because I like you and kinda feel sorry for you... From the map, if you honestly think Heidstra was in a better position than Stein, heck I was in Texas and was in better position than Heidstra .. You need sympathy..

nettathirty,

The proof is in the testimony and reality of what these witnesses said they heard. Heidstra heard two male voices coming from the front of Nicole's condo while in a direct line of site outside on a quiet, still night. Stein heard nothing while sleeping in a room at the back of her condo far removed from the front of Nicole's condo.

If your feel you're being insulted when you're constantly being corrected for of all the false and misinformation you post than do something about it. Learn the facts before you offer an opinion about something you don't know anything about.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*snipped*

Learn the facts before you offer an opinion about something you don't know anything about.

bobaugust

August,

2 Gloves, both found "Right side out -FACT
The Bloody shoe print was from OJ, the victims blood was on the ground long before OJ walked through it..-FACT
Blue/Black fibers found on 1 victim not both, found on 1 sock but not both. -FACT

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

2 Gloves, both found "Right side out -FACT
The Bloody shoe print was from OJ, the victims blood was on the ground long before OJ walked through it..-FACT
Blue/Black fibers found on 1 victim not both, found on 1 sock but not both. -FACT

nettathirty,

Fact: Gloves can be taken off a couple of different ways without resulting in the fingers being turned inside out. Simpson demonstrated one of the ways by snapping them off at the end of the glove demonstration in the criminal trial.

It is not a fact that the victims blood was on the ground long before Simpson walked through it, that's an unsupported Wagner fantasy.

The fact that the blue black cotton fibers weren't found on Nicole's clothing only tells us there was little contact between her clothing and Simpson's clothing.

Your statement that the blue black cotton fibers were only found on one sock is false. Blood was found on only one sock.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty,

Fact: Gloves can be taken off a couple of different ways without resulting in the fingers being turned inside out. Simpson demonstrated one of the ways by snapping them off at the end of the glove demonstration in the criminal trial.

It is not a fact that the victims blood was on the ground long before Simpson walked through it, that's an unsupported Wagner fantasy.

The fact that the blue black cotton fibers weren't found on Nicole's clothing only tells us there was little contact between her clothing and Simpson's clothing.

Your statement that the blue black cotton fibers were only found on one sock is false. Blood was found on only one sock.

bobaugust

August,

Did the expert testify otherwise about the blood at Bundy..NO
The fibers being on only 1 vicitm, shows how stubborn you are..
LE removed 2 socks from the bedroom, and only was reported to have the fibers... showing your stubborness (denial)

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Did the expert testify otherwise about the blood at Bundy..NO
The fibers being on only 1 vicitm, shows how stubborn you are..
LE removed 2 socks from the bedroom, and only was reported to have the fibers... showing your stubborness (denial)

nettathirty, the fact is no expert ever testified to what you are claiming. Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked any expert that question. No one ever asked any expert if aliens from outer space could have committed the murders, Using your logic that means they could of.

The fibers on Ron Goldman's shirt were transferred from Simpson's clothing when he held Goldman from behind during their physical close contact fight.

That didn't happen with Nicole. The fact that there were no fibers were found on Nicole's dress from the killer's clothing means the killer never came in close contact with her clothing like he did with Ron.

I have no idea what report you're referring to but no one ever testified that the fibers were only found on one sock. You're making things up again..

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped

You're making things up again..

bobaugust

August,

Your saying there wasn't 2 socks on the floor and of the 2 only 1 was found to have fiber and blood.. This didn't happen, sir?

bobaugust

08-28-2006, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Your saying there wasn't 2 socks on the floor and of the 2 only 1 was found to have fiber and blood.. This didn't happen, sir?

nettathirty, you're confused.

There were two socks found. One sock had blood on the toe and the ankle. The other sock didn't have any blood on it. The blue black cotton fibers came from both socks.

bobaugust

martin II

09-20-2006, 05:52 PM