Goldmans Sue

[Kate Sachel]

Kinetic Kate

In any segment of a population or race you will most assuredly find those that are racists. That particular segment will rejoice anytime they feel that there is an event, which supports its agenda. The question is not what those people felt that had no process in the decision making of the trial, but, what were the thoughts of those that did.

As I have found you to be honest, open minded and willing to discuss matters in a respectful and civil manner, let me state that most jurors desire to hear a case that makes sense from the beginning to the end. The last time Simpson was seen on the night of the murders in Nicole's presence was at the recital. He was seen on videotape in a pleasant mood. He discussed her figure/appearance in the black dress with Kato. There is no evidence that Nicole and Simpson argued on that fatal night. Do you think that the prosecution offered a conclusive theory on why Simpson would have committed murder on that particular night, since Nicole and he had many prior arguments that did not end in a killing?

Before we dive in I would like to clarify a point. As you aware, I understand the jury's verdict of the criminal trial and agree that questions were raised reagrding certain issues that were difficult to answer in the moment. With that, you are also aware that I firmly and fully believe that OJ is the killer based on evidence both presented and left out of the criminal trial and based on evidence and testimony presented in the civil trial.

Having said that, no I do not believe that the prosecution offered a conlcusive theory on why OJ committed murder that night.

One of the most important points to remember regarding his demeanor in the public eye at the recital is that OJ's public image is the most important thing in the world to him. Do you believe that he wanted to present a brooding, depressed, or angry indivudal whose ex-wife had just left him again and openly snubbed him in front of the family.

Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters and who so desperately attempted to avoid a summons to be deposed in the civil trial to the point where he tried to run over the server, admitted in his deposition that on the night of the recital OJ was dark and sullen and that OJ made the statement regarding Nicole that he was "gonna get her, but good".

So which is it? Do you not agree that it is possible that he was sullen and dark in the presence of his close friend, and then put on a relaxed and happy demeanor to the public after the recital was finished?

I do not agree that there is no evidence that OJ was quite angry with Nicole, I simply believe that the prosecution did not set forth a decent case.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II

All
Are there any comment about the SPECIFIC comments about why white america took the position they seems to take after the acquittal of OJ.
martin II



I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

"And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."

Specific comments: I think the man is an idiot who demoralizes blacks and claims to have a deeper meaning behind the thought process of whites, when in reality it is OJ Simpson who did not accept his own African American heritage and tried to make himself white. He claimed that race did not exist in his world, but then he murdered two people and used racism as his scapegoat.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II

All
Are there any comment about the SPECIFIC comments about why white america took the position they seems to take after the acquittal of OJ.
martin II



I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

"And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."

Other specific comments: It belongs in the "Role of Race" thread.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Before we dive in I would like to clarify a point. As you aware, I understand the jury's verdict of the criminal trial and agree that questions were raised reagrding certain issues that were difficult to answer in the moment. With that, you are also aware that I firmly and fully believe that OJ is the killer based on evidence both presented and left out of the criminal trial and based on evidence and testimony presented in the civil trial.

Having said that, no I do not believe that the prosecution offered a conlcusive theory on why OJ committed murder that night.

One of the most important points to remember regarding his demeanor in the public eye at the recital is that OJ's public image is the most important thing in the world to him. Do you believe that he wanted to present a brooding, depressed, or angry indivudal whose ex-wife had just left him again and openly snubbed him in front of the family.

Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters and who so desperately attempted to avoid a summons to be deposed in the civil trial to the point where he tried to run over the server, admitted in his deposition that on the night of the recital OJ was dark and sullen and that OJ made the statement regarding Nicole that he was "gonna get her, but good".

So which is it? Do you not agree that it is possible that he was sullen and dark in the presence of his close friend, and then put on a relaxed and happy demeanor to the public after the recital was finished?

I do not agree that there is no evidence that OJ was quite angry with Nicole, I simply believe that the prosecution did not set forth a decent case.

Kate

Fine, on that note, I think we can begin a civil and respectful dialogue. I will begin on points on which we agree. The prosecution did not set forth a decent case, or, in other words put forth a pitiful one. Let us now take the testimony of Ron Fishman where Simpson allegedly said that he was going to get her but good. We have all said things that have been taken out of context. I do not see how that testimony could have survived a hearsay objection, unless it cause Fishman to warn Nicole. Given some of the posts about Cora, it could be credibly argued that Fishman had a reason to slant his testimony. In short, Fishman's testimony could be argued to appear fishy.

In regard to the dark and sullen look, .I have been asked by people with whom I am having a conversation, why I am looking that way. The look had nothing to do with them and was related to something else that was on my mind while they were talking. Just as quickly as the brought it to my attention, the look passed. Given that the look was before the video was taken, we can surmise that, as you have stated, he was acting for the camera, or that he was over whatever caused the look.

As I see it thus far, there is evidence for both guilt and non guilt, but still no evidence of anything that would have caused him to commit murder.

[martin II]

here are the full comments of MR Dyson on the subject. Not a interpretation.
martinII

But did the African Americans rejoicing at O.J.'s acquittal really believe he was innocent?

Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated a) thought O.J. was innocent, or b) were even concerned most about O.J. as opposed to their Uncle Charlie or Bubba or their sister Shanaynay or their Aunt Jackie, who had been screwed by a system that never paid attention to them.

Again, O.J. was beyond his body. "O.J." was a term that represented every black person that got beat up by the criminal justice system, and now we have found some vindication, and guess what, white America? It was with a black man that you loved. It was with a black man that you said was better than us. It was with a black man that you said wasn't like us. He was different than we are. He wasn't a troublemaker. He didn't cause racial consternation, or he wasn't controversial. Ha, ha, ha. The very guy you thought was so perfect turns out to be the one who turned the tables on you. That was a delicious irony of the victory as well.

[littlebit]

Fine, on that note, I think we can begin a civil and respectful dialogue. I will begin on points on which we agree. The prosecution did not set forth a decent case, or, in other words put forth a pitiful one. Let us now take the testimony of Ron Fishman where Simpson allegedly said that he was going to get her but good. We have all said things that have been taken out of context. I do not see how that testimony could have survived a hearsay objection, unless it cause Fishman to warn Nicole. Given some of the posts about Cora, it could be credibly argued that Fishman had a reason to slant his testimony. In short, Fishman's testimony could be argued to appear fishy.

In regard to the dark and sullen look, .I have been asked by people with whom I am having a conversation, why I am looking that way. The look had nothing to do with them and was related to something else that was on my mind while they were talking. Just as quickly as the brought it to my attention, the look passed. Given that the look was before the video was taken, we can surmise that, as you have stated, he was acting for the camera, or that he was over whatever caused the look.

As I see it thus far, there is evidence for both guilt and non guilt, but still no evidence of anything that would have caused him to commit murder.

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

[William Anthony]

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

[littlebit]

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

I see. I think that something must have happened to anger him other than the recital.

[Kate Sachel]

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

I would agree that showing motive in a case such as this is key.

OJ Simpson was a picture perfect All-American athlete and I think that many people really struggled with needing to understand why he would commit the act of murder.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I see. I think that something must have happened to anger him other than the recital.

I don't personally believe it was one incident that triggered his rage. I believe it was a culmination of events that lead up to it.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I would agree that showing motive in a case such as this is key.

OJ Simpson was a picture perfect All-American athlete and I think that many people really struggled with needing to understand why he would commit the act of murder.

Kate

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

[littlebit]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

I am eating lunch. I will think about it. I will give you my answer later.

[Kate Sachel]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

Good question.

I don't think it has to mean that the killer has killed before. I have been reading up on rage and how it impacts a person's mind and physical body. I have been angry before, but never rageful. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever even cursed at an individual so the aspect of rage gets difficult to wrap my mind around.

However, apparently a person who goes into rage experiences surges of adrenaline coursing through their body, which in turn can give physical strength otherwise not demonstrated when the body is relaxed or even just angry.

With that, I believe that the scenario is possible with Simpson being a first-time killer. It also really does depend on whether or not he was forced to confront Nicole and Ron together, or if Nicole had already been rendered unconscious when Ron showed up, which is what the autopsy report suggests.

One and one half minutes is quite a longer time that it might appear.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/si....ap/index.html

Thoughts?

Kate

[fbgweezer]

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

obsessed . . .

[William Anthony]

Good question.

I don't think it has to mean that the killer has killed before. I have been reading up on rage and how it impacts a person's mind and physical body. I have been angry before, but never rageful. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever even cursed at an individual so the aspect of rage gets difficult to wrap my mind around.

However, apparently a person who goes into rage experiences surges of adrenaline coursing through their body, which in turn can give physical strength otherwise not demonstrated when the body is relaxed or even just angry.

With that, I believe that the scenario is possible with Simpson being a first-time killer. It also really does depend on whether or not he was forced to confront Nicole and Ron together, or if Nicole had already been rendered unconscious when Ron showed up, which is what the autopsy report suggests.

One and one half minutes is quite a longer time that it might appear.

Kate

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

[socaldiva]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/si....ap/index.html

Thoughts?

Kate


The link didn't work for me, but I heard a little something about this on the radio this morning. I think it's GREAT!

[martin II]

littlebit

Paulas phone call did not cause oj to kill anyone.
Oj was not in any rage at the recital.
Comments about nicoles dress did not cause him to kill anyone.
OJ was not in some kind of cocain induced rage.
Oj had moved on with his life.

Oj had too much going for himself in his personal and business life to destroy himself by killing Nicole. There was absoluteyl no benefit for Oj to kill Nicole.
He did not seem to have any problem finding a replacement as it has been stated that he actually had too many women.
so no OJSimpson did not kill anyone imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/si....ap/index.html

Thoughts?

Kate

My initial thoughts are that, if the Federal Court is without jurisdiction, most assuredly the State court is.

[Kate Sachel]

The link didn't work for me, but I heard a little something about this on the radio this morning. I think it's GREAT!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/simpson.lawsuit.ap/index.html

[socaldiva]

littlebit

Paulas phone call did not cause oj to kill anyone.
Oj was not in any rage at the recital.
Comments about nicoles dress did not cause him to kill anyone.
OJ was not in some kind of cocain induced rage.
Oj had moved on with his life.

Oj had too much going for himself in his personal and business life to destroy himself by killing Nicole. There was absoluteyl no benefit for Oj to kill Nicole.
He did not seem to have any problem finding a replacement as it has been stated that he actually had too many women.
so no OJSimpson did not kill anyone imo
martin II

:rolleyes: How to you profess to know these things that you state definitively? I've got a news flash for you, having a lot going for you in terms of wealth & business has nothing to do with mental health & the ability to lose it. Gawd.

[martin II]

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

william
i agree with your last sentance.
On the one hand some believe oj was in a hateful rage and that the murders were a rage killing.
However the autopsie reports do indicate that the killer/s knew exactly where on the body to attack to cause death to come for sure.
Some have said that Ron did in fact put up a great struggle while Nicole was unconcious on the other side of the walk.

RON was stabbed and cut with a purpose so was nicole.

So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.

I believe this would require more than one person and more than 1 1/2 minutes. imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

william
i agree with your last sentance.
On the one hand some believe oj was in a hateful rage and that the murders were a rage killing.
However the autopsie reports do indicate that the killer/s knew exactly where on the body to attack to cause death to come for sure.
Some have said that Ron did in fact put up a great struggle while Nicole was unconcious on the other side of the walk.

RON was stabbed and cut with a purpose so was nicole.

So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.

I believe this would require more than one person and more than 1 1/2 minutes. imo
martin II

Actually, Ron's killing was described by the coroner as a "rage" killing, and Nicole's was described as "precise".

Kate

[martin II]

My initial thoughts are that, if the Federal Court is without jurisdiction, most assuredly the State court is.

I am wondering how much if any money is left in any account other than his pension account.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.


Following your theory, I guess if a person full of rage attacks you, you end up walking away as they are not precise. Geesh!

[William Anthony]

Actually, Ron's killing was described by the coroner as a "rage" killing, and Nicole's was described as "precise".

Kate

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

[martin II]

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

[William Anthony]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

I wonder if this is the same source to which the other poster was referring.

[Kate Sachel]

I wonder if this is the same source to which the other poster was referring.

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

Do you realize that Ron was stabbed almost 40 times? He was just "slashed and stabbed", but in being stabbed that many times it makes sense to me that major arteries were hit in the process ... whether purposely or not.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

Thank you. What do you think of Ron being the intended victim and the possibiltiy of two or more killers?

[martin II]

Thank you. What do you think of Ron being the intended victim and the possibiltiy of two or more killers?

WILLIAM
Rons Jugular was one of the very first wounds inflicted by a killer that was mostly behind him and had a head lock on him.This indicatred that the killer knew where to inflict this death wound early on with all purpose. Not by chance. same for the aorta(sp) the others were 'testing" wounds and general cuts.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

The over thirty stabs and cuts to Ron Goldman are what tells us this killer didn't know what it took to kill someone. All he did was continue stabbing and cutting until Goldman ceased to struggle. Dr. Spitz opined that the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Simpson's left flank that cut his aorta. Spitz explained how Goldman would have immediately weakened and his attacker continued to stab and cut him until he dropped him to the ground and bled to death.

Spitz testified that it would have taken only a minute or less for the killer to inflict all of those wounds. There was no precision in any of Goldman's wounds. No forensic expert from either side ever said that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The over thirty stabs and cuts to Ron Goldman are what tells us this killer didn't know what it took to kill someone. All he did was continue stabbing and cutting until Goldman ceased to struggle. Dr. Spitz opined that the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Simpson's left flank that cut his aorta. Spitz explained how Goldman would have immediately weakened and his attacker continued to stab and cut him until he dropped him to the ground and bled to death.

Spitz testified that it would have taken only a minute or less for the killer to inflict all of those wounds. There was no precision in any of Goldman's wounds. No forensic expert from either side ever said that.

bobaugust

Then you know more than the coroner, and you disagree with the information posted by the poster I have promised not to call anything. It seems you disregard all the information that tends to conflict with your determination that Simpson and Simpson alone was the killer.

[bobaugust]

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

There is no evidence of a second killer. If Nicole was unconscious when Simpson attacked and killed Ron he could have then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

If we can, let us follow through on the description of Nicole's death as a precise killing. To me this would indicate that that the killer was deliberate, purposeful, cold, calculating and premeditated in his/her conduct. This would imply that the killer was not in a rage. This would indicate that the motive for this killing was not jealousy, but either for financial gain or for retribution. Given the number of posts on the board about the measly amount of money she received from Simpson and the fact that he was not a good father, it is possible to rule out a financial or custodial motive for the killings. Are we in agreement?

[bobaugust]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

martin II, no that wasn't what happened in this case. The cuts and wounds that Goldman sustained were not precise or specific and he did not die quickly. That's why Dr. Golden opined it was a rage killing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Then you know more than the coroner, and you disagree with the information posted by the poster I have promised not to call anything. It seems you disregard all the information that tends to conflict with your determination that Simpson and Simpson alone was the killer.

The coroner never testified that the wounds to Goldman were precise and specific and I have no idea what information you are referring to.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no that wasn't what happened in this case. The cuts and wounds that Goldman sustained were not precise or specific and he did not die quickly. That's why Dr. Golden opined it was a rage killing.

bobaugust

bob
it was my understanding that the jugular and or aorta wonds would have killed ron regardless of the other wounds as he became immediately weaken

martin Ii

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence of a second killer. If Nicole was unconscious when Simpson attacked and killed Ron he could have then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.

[Kate Sachel]

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.


Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

[bobaugust]

If we can, let us follow through on the description of Nicole's death as a precise killing. To me this would indicate that that the killer was deliberate, purposeful, cold, calculating and premeditated in his/her conduct. This would imply that the killer was not in a rage. This would indicate that the motive for this killing was not jealousy, but either for financial gain or for retribution. Given the number of posts on the board about the measly amount of money she received from Simpson and the fact that he was not a good father, it is possible to rule out a financial or custodial motive for the killings. Are we in agreement?

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
it was my understanding that the jugular and or aorta wonds would have killed ron regardless of the other wounds as he became immediately weaken

martin Ii

martin II, there were several wounds that were fatal wounds. Spitz explained they came after Goldman's aorta was cut. That's why most of Ron's bleeding was internal. No expert ever opined any of these wounds were precise. The killer randomly stabbed and cut Goldman until he no longer continued to struggle and then dropped him to the ground. Goldman did not die quickly, he bled to death on the ground.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am wondering how much if any money is left in any account other than his pension account.
martin II

martin II, I have heard from a reliable source that Simpson's pension is almost depleted. It seems at the beginning of this case he had take money from it and it's now running out. Maybe that's the reason for his book deals, but as time goes on we may see if this information is correct.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The coroner never testified that the wounds to Goldman were precise and specific and I have no idea what information you are referring to.

bobaugust

you are playing with words
martinIi

[bobaugust]

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.

What complete bull crap. There's not a trace of evidence of a second killer. The fact that some blood on the rear gate and on Nicole's back was not collected in no way indicates the possibility of a second killer. Pure fantasy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

Can you conceive of a killer(s) leaving the scene, without tracking in blood, and by some other means than the gate? How were the police able to tramp around in the scene without leaving foot prints?

[martin II]

martin II, there were several wounds that were fatal wounds. Spitz explained they came after Goldman's aorta was cut. That's why most of Ron's bleeding was internal. No expert ever opined any of these wounds were precise. The killer randomly stabbed and cut Goldman until he no longer continued to struggle and then dropped him to the ground. Goldman did not die quickly, he bled to death on the ground.

bobaugust

if goldman did not die quickly then maby it took more than 1 1/2 minutes
martin Ii

[bobaugust]

you are playing with words
martinIi

martin II, no, you're the one playing with words. Neither the coroner nor any of the experts who testified in this case said what you are saying.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I have heard from a reliable source that Simpson's pension is almost depleted. It seems at the beginning of this case he had take money from it and it's now running out. Maybe that's the reason for his book deals, but as time goes on we may see if this information is correct.

bobaugust

bob
it is reported that he got $1,000,000 from that non book if i did it. rummors has it that there is another book in the works. If he keeps this up and protects his money from fred he may make it for a few more years.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

[martin II]

martin II, no, you're the one playing with words. Neither the coroner nor any of the experts who testified in this case said what you are saying.

bobaugust

bob
it is my belief that the killer knew exactly where the arteries were located that would cause immediatly great loss of blood from the closed blood system
and that these locations were cut early on which caused Ron to become very wear very early so i am not sure what kind of fight he put up or long it lasted
but more than some think it took.

martin II

[William Anthony]

What complete bull crap. There's not a trace of evidence of a second killer. The fact that some blood on the rear gate and on Nicole's back was not collected in no way indicates the possibility of a second killer. Pure fantasy.

bobaugust

I do not wish to continue a conversation with you if you cannot respond in a polite, courteous, and respectful manner. Thank you.

[bobaugust]

Can you conceive of a killer(s) leaving the scene, without tracking in blood, and by some other means than the gate? How were the police able to tramp around in the scene without leaving foot prints?

The killer aliens from outer space were transported back to their space ship and their space suits were not made of fibers so they never left any fiber evidence.

There isn't one single shred of evidence of a second killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The killer aliens from outer space were transported back to their space ship and their space suits were not made of fibers so they never left any fiber evidence.

There isn't one single shred of evidence of a second killer.

bobaugust

That's because it was not collected.

[martin II]

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The killer of ron and nicole is theory


No, it's supported by evidence & common sense, unlike your rambling offers of what you think transpired.

[William Anthony]

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

Every time my dog barks, I check to see who is killing who. That is irrefutable evidence that someone is being killed, maybe in China.

[socaldiva]

Every time my dog barks, I check to see who is killing who. That is irrefutable evidence that someone is being killed, maybe in China.

No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder :rolleyes:

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

[bobaugust]

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

The manner of Nicole's killing is based on the evidence of her wounds.

The over thirty stabs and cuts Goldman sustained are what tells knowledgeable people that the killer was an amateur and didn't know what it took to kill Goldman. I have no idea what some person described to you, but I don't believe any expert in this case ever described Goldman's wounds as precise.

bobaugust

[martin II]

WILLIAM
Here is something on the rag used to smear foot prints at bundy.
i am looking for more.
martin II

it is from wagner
watch bob try to attack wagner.


SEQUENCE: From this analysis, I infer that a particular sequence of events occurred in the area between Nicole's head and the alcove threshold...

1. Some source of blood was unleashed
2. A rag was used to make certain patterns indistinct and produce a "haze" thereby
3. Something occurred that resulted in more blood dribbled onto some parts of the haze
4 The rag may have been used again, selectively, as at "F"
5. The cap and glove were deposited
6. Latest of all, the flow from Nicole's blood pool ran over much of this.

However, previous analyses of other evidence has led me to understand that Nicole's throat was slit while she was kneeling over the first step, her body was repositioned into the position in which it was found, and her legs were jammed under the fence to the south. Other evidence leads to the conclusion that Goldman was murdered on the front walk, his body was carried the few feet to the edge of the alcove and heaved in there, and Simpson's cap and gloves were planted to frame him before the assailants left the scene. In this context, the foregoing is understood to specifically be...

1. Nicole's throat was slit, eventually producing much blood, and her was body re-positioned.
2. To conceal the specifics a rag was quickly swiped around the tiles to the north of her body.
3. Goldman's body, dripping blood, was carried to the edge of the alcove and heaved in.
4. The rag was used again to cover up foot prints of the trip to the alcove.
5. The cap and gloves were planted.
6. The flow from Nicole's slowly spreading blood pool ran over som

[martin II]

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

you see NOT A CLUE

hahahaha

martin II

[socaldiva]

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

What part of "no one here is posting" don't you understand? More twist & spin from William.

[socaldiva]

you see NOT A CLUE
hahahaha
martin II

No you don't have a CLUE Martin, but you insist on posting here anyway. The only thing your posts are good for are a LAUGH.

[William Anthony]

The manner of Nicole's killing is based on the evidence of her wounds.

The over thirty stabs and cuts Goldman sustained are what tells knowledgeable people that the killer was an amateur and didn't know what it took to kill Goldman. I have no idea what some person described to you, but I don't believe any expert in this case ever described Goldman's wounds as precise.

bobaugust

I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

[William Anthony]

What part of "no one here is posting" don't you understand? More twist & spin from William.

What part of what you post do you not understand. Here is your original post.

":No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder "
There is some spining going on, but not from William. Do you have anything you want to add to the discussion on motive or the possibility of two killers, or the killer being someone other than Simpson, which may persuade others?

[bobaugust]

I do not wish to continue a conversation with you if you cannot respond in a polite, courteous, and respectful manner. Thank you.

I found your statement that "it is premature in our speculation to rule out the possibility of two killers" so ridiculous that bull crap was the best description I could think of to describe it. I now realize that I have been overestimating your knowledge and ability to understand the reality of the evidence in this case so I will eliminate those kind of descriptions in future postings.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I found your statement that "it is premature in our speculation to rule out the possibility of two killers" so ridiculous that bull crap was the best description I could think of to describe it. I now realize that I have been overestimating your knowledge and ability to understand the reality of the evidence in this case so I will eliminate those kind of descriptions in future postings.

bobaugust


:no: :seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

wagner talks about blood smears made with a rag to cover foot prints ay bundy


I consider that the smear at E is a deliberate effort to wipe away some indication of the perpetrator's presence (as a shoe print, or some other pattern in blood that would have revealed something about the crime that was inconsistent with Simpson as the murderer). The instrument for this wiping could have been a damp towel or rag.


There are at least a dozen places on the front walk where there are thin (less than 1/4" wide) streaks in blood (for example, those at M in Figure 2). Sometimes these occur in pairs or triads, and when they do, the individual streaks are parallel to the others. I consider that these are artifacts of the wiping rag. When a piece of cloth is held crumpled, some creases will stick out farther than the general bunch, and when the cloth is passed over a patch of liquid stain it will leave streaks like these. This pattern is characteristic of a light brushing motion with the rag. If much pressure is applied, a smear results, and that is not seen up near Nicole's body. (A smear is seen, however at the other end of the front walk, near the sidewalk.)

[fbgweezer]

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

the blood is orenthal's
the hat is orenthal's
the glove is orenthal's
the fibers are orenthal's
the footprints are orenthal's
the motive to harm Nicole is orenthal's

[martin II]

:no: :seeya: :seeya:

william

Now i am wondering if bob has been giving way too much validity to the giga bites of info he was pasted on his hard drive. Which would lead him to be blind to the nonvaildity of the paid prosecution lying witnesses like vanhatter furhman fung mazzalo bodiazak and MARTZ.imo
martin II

[martin II]

the blood is orenthal's
the hat is orenthal's
the glove is orenthal's
the fibers are orenthal's
the footprints are orenthal's
the motive to harm Nicole is orenthal's

weezer

hat = must have been
glove =must have been
fibers = don't know where they came from no proof
oj not seen in bm shoes on 6.12
No motive as he had dropped her and was busy with paula, greta and a few others.

all in your mind and you have on numerious occassions proven that you have a history of streatching and twisting facts to fit your agenda. right
martin II

[martin II]

weezer
a few days ago you made the comment that WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES.

I asked you to explain your comment as you did appear to be serious about the issue but i have not found your response. I have interest in this issue
and would like to hear your more detailed explination on your comment.

what do you mean WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES and
THE JOKE WAS ON US

MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

*snip*What part of what you post do you not understand. Here is your original post.


I did not say there was a post that I didn't understand. You are utterly confused and/or spinning! Give it up!

[bobaugust]

I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

The wounds on the male victim are different. Goldman put up an incredible struggle, one hell of a fight. The types of wounds on him - the defense wounds on the hands and arms and the deeper thrusts to the body - show that the
(killer) was doing what he had to strictly to kill him. He wasn't interested in punishing him or making a point. He was just trying to neutralize him.

But the offender whacks her on the head with blunt force--boom--probably the butt of the knife, probably sufficient to knock her out.

He then goes to Goldman who is about five or six feet away near a palm tree growing up through the ground. This is maybe two or three seconds later and Ron is caught off guard by the attack on Nicole. He's trapped in this small
area--a four-by-six-foot space with a fence behind him--and he's blocked by this palm tree. Instinctively, he goes into a pugilistic stand--we can tell this from the defense wounds-- and he's also stabbed in his left thigh and left abdomen. There's a struggle between the two men. The shirt Goldman's wearing is twisted around his body so that when he's stabbed and stabbed again the holes don't seem to line up with the stab wounds when the body is
examined later.

By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box, nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body.

But from my experience, killers--whether they're first-timers or multiple-- don't figure on getting caught. Had this unexpected man not appeared on the scene and slowed him down and thrown him off, he would have gotten back home in plenty of time to pull off his alibi and be on the road to the airport for his flight to Chicago without anyone being the wiser. What he might have planned was to be able to get to the airport in plenty of time, then call a friend of his and say. 'I'm worried, I've been trying to call Nicole all evening and I can't reach her. Could you go over and check to make sure she and the kids are okay?' That not only establishes his alibi but also prevents the children from finding their mother.

And remember that, in addition to being a world famous football player, he's also naturally very charming and experienced as an actor. He knows how he has to behave to throw suspicion off him, like conversing amiably with people and signing autographs like he always does. In his mind, he's obviously justified the crime. 'She forced me into it.' So he's already got a certain amount of peace with it."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

The wounds on the male victim are different. Goldman put up an incredible struggle, one hell of a fight. The types of wounds on him - the defense wounds on the hands and arms and the deeper thrusts to the body - show that the
(killer) was doing what he had to strictly to kill him. He wasn't interested in punishing him or making a point. He was just trying to neutralize him.

But the offender whacks her on the head with blunt force--boom--probably the butt of the knife, probably sufficient to knock her out.

He then goes to Goldman who is about five or six feet away near a palm tree growing up through the ground. This is maybe two or three seconds later and Ron is caught off guard by the attack on Nicole. He's trapped in this small
area--a four-by-six-foot space with a fence behind him--and he's blocked by this palm tree. Instinctively, he goes into a pugilistic stand--we can tell this from the defense wounds-- and he's also stabbed in his left thigh and left abdomen. There's a struggle between the two men. The shirt Goldman's wearing is twisted around his body so that when he's stabbed and stabbed again the holes don't seem to line up with the stab wounds when the body is
examined later.

By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box, nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body.

But from my experience, killers--whether they're first-timers or multiple-- don't figure on getting caught. Had this unexpected man not appeared on the scene and slowed him down and thrown him off, he would have gotten back home in plenty of time to pull off his alibi and be on the road to the airport for his flight to Chicago without anyone being the wiser. What he might have planned was to be able to get to the airport in plenty of time, then call a friend of his and say. 'I'm worried, I've been trying to call Nicole all evening and I can't reach her. Could you go over and check to make sure she and the kids are okay?' That not only establishes his alibi but also prevents the children from finding their mother.

And remember that, in addition to being a world famous football player, he's also naturally very charming and experienced as an actor. He knows how he has to behave to throw suspicion off him, like conversing amiably with people and signing autographs like he always does. In his mind, he's obviously justified the crime. 'She forced me into it.' So he's already got a certain amount of peace with it."

bobaugust


A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

[bobaugust]

A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

Speculation based on the evidence and knowledgeable reasonable explanations from an expert about one inexperienced killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Speculation based on the evidence and knowledgeable reasonable explanations from an expert about one inexperienced killer.

bobaugust

Equals a therory.

[martin II]

Equals a therory.

more like a idea
martin II

[martin II]

more like a idea
martin II

or a notion
martin ii

[martin II]

anna nicole smith.
dropped dead today

[socaldiva]

anna nicole smith.
dropped dead today

How sweet of you to word it this way :rolleyes: WTH does this have to do with the Simpson case? Do you think that you are the only one privy to other news? The rest of us can read you know. :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer
a few days ago you made the comment that WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES.

I asked you to explain your comment as you did appear to be serious about the issue but i have not found your response. I have interest in this issue
and would like to hear your more detailed explination on your comment.

what do you mean WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES and
THE JOKE WAS ON US

MARTIN ii

This is Off Topic and irrelevant to the "Goldmans Sue" Thread. It's obvious that Weezer is finished with her explanations, but you keep DEMANDING that she give you a "more detailed 'explination' on her comment!" Give it up for God's sake!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

No. Bob has a right to post as much as he wants, pages and pages. It is William who should be taken to task for not "snipping" Bob's post when making his reply! Duh! What an absolute **** you are! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[littlebit]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

I see the possibility of more than one killer. I still believe Orenthal is the killer.

[2L8 4A D8]

I see the possibility of more than one killer. I still believe Orenthal is the killer.

Why do you keep on saying, "I still believe Orenthal is the killer" or "I still believe that OJ is guilty?" Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or us? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.

[William Anthony]

No. Bob has a right to post as much as he wants, pages and pages. It is William who should be taken to task for not "snipping" Bob's post when making his reply! Duh! What an absolute **** you are! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

Did you read that there is not a problem with bandwith? Why should I be taken to task? Why are you so insistent on having me taken to task when I did nothing worng? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HARASS ME WHEN I HAVE ASKED FOR THE HARASSMENT TO STOP?

[martin II]

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.

william
the bloomingdales sale manager that normally sold oj his shoes stated that he did not sell oj those BM shoes.
IMO
MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

william
the bloomingdales sale manager that normally sold oj his shoes stated that he did not sell oj those BM shoes.
IMO
MARTIN ii

Thank you Martin.

I know that networks supply hosts with clothes to wear and/or keep. Do you know if they do the same for broadcasters?

[martin II]

Thank you Martin.

I know that networks supply hosts with clothes to wear and/or keep. Do you know if they do the same for broadcasters?

william

In most cases they do. Most networks have a wardrobe manager that is responsible for securing dress apparel, shoes ,hats unbrellas etc for on air broadcasters.

The bloomingdales sales manager also said he would never have sold oj those bm shoes because of the weather in buffalo ny.

However since there was never a picture showing the complete bottom of the sole of the bm shoes that oj was suppose to have had on, there is no way to compare them to a bm sole.

martin II

martin II

[martin II]

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.


william

I am wondering what was in the spots on the tiles before they were wipped with that cloth rag. maby other foot prints.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

In most cases they do. Most networks have a wardrobe manager that is responsible for securing dress apparel, shoes ,hats unbrellas etc for on air broadcasters.

The bloomingdales sales manager also said he would never have sold oj those bm shoes because of the weather in buffalo ny.

However since there was never a picture showing the complete bottom of the sole of the bm shoes that oj was suppose to have had on, there is no way to compare them to a bm sole.

martin II

martin II

I took owned to mean purchased or possesed. If they were BMs that he wore for the broadcast, did the prosecution ever call the wardrobe manager to ask what became of the shoes, no? They had a footprint that they could not link to any shoe owned by Simpson. Imho, they were a couple of feet (pun intended) short of proving the case on this issue.

[littlebit]

Why do you keep on saying, "I still believe Orenthal is the killer" or "I still believe that OJ is guilty?" Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or us? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

Which word didn't you understand? I was saying what I believe. Why are you questioning me? Are you a moderator? Just curious!

[Kate Sachel]

I took owned to mean purchased or possesed. If they were BMs that he wore for the broadcast, did the prosecution ever call the wardrobe manager to ask what became of the shoes, no? They had a footprint that they could not link to any shoe owned by Simpson. Imho, they were a couple of feet (pun intended) short of proving the case on this issue.

But they did have a footprint that they could link to a shoe worn on more than one occassion by Simpson. A shoe that, in addition to claiming he never owned, he claimed he never even wore.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.


How does that conflict with the information I supplied?

Kate

[William Anthony]

How does that conflict with the information I supplied?

Kate

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

[Kate Sachel]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

YOu may want to re-read his post ... he states that Nicole's killing was not a rage killing.

Kate

[martin II]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?


william

It is strange in this computer age and with advance graphic capabilities that some do not believe that a picture cannot be manipulated to change heads of two people, trousers and even shoes.

However there is NO picture that shows the complete botton of the sole of the shoes oj was suppose to have had on at that ball game. So no conneciton of oj to any bloody footprints imo

martinII

[martin II]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

WILLIAM

If my memory serves me correctly previously bob has said that the paula phone call set oj off with anger. Also something about oj was driving around, got angry and decided to go kill nicole.correct bob?

Now above he states that Nicoles murder was not a rage killing but Rons was a rage kiling.
So guess if oj was the killer he was not angry with nicole. just killed her on PG
hahaha
martin II

[William Anthony]

YOu may want to re-read his post ... he states that Nicole's killing was not a rage killing.

Kate

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?

Yesterday, 09:47 PM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

"I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

I can understand your confusion by his posts.

[martin II]

william


Someone held nicole by her hair or face and almost completely cut her head off. How is it possible not to call this action that of a person in a rage.

martin II

[martin II]

william


Someone held nicole by her hair or face and almost completely cut her head off. How is it possible not to call this action that of a person in a rage.

martin II

sorry

this action that of a person NOT in a rage

[Kate Sachel]

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?

Yesterday, 09:47 PM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

"I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

I can understand your confusion by his posts.

Oh! Indeed you are correct that I hadn't read that posting and was referring to his most recent. I understand the conflict.

Given the evidence presented, I do not believe that Nicole's was a rage killing but I do believe it was a personal killing.

You may call me Kate.

Kate

[William Anthony]

sorry

this action that of a person NOT in a rage

Martin,

You are confusing me, smile. I think you mean that Nicole's murder was a rage killing. It is possible for bobaugust to call it both, immro, depending on whether or not doing so convicts Simpson, smile.

[William Anthony]

Oh! Indeed you are correct that I hadn't read that posting and was referring to his most recent. I understand the conflict.

Given the evidence presented, I do not believe that Nicole's was a rage killing but I do believe it was a personal killing.

You may call me Kate.

Kate

Then we have reached a consensus. Likewise, I believe the killing to be personal and precise, as you posted. Given those facts, I would surmise that the motive was not one of jealousy or over a custody battle. I see a killing of this nature as more aligned with a financial motive or a necessity to avoid detection. With those thoughts in mind, it would appear that the killer(s) were enraged with Ron and that he was the intended victim. Therefore, given those postulates, the killer would be someone known to both Ron and Nicole, who knew that Ron was expected at Nicole’s. This would tend to eliminate Simpson? I know that his elimination at this point is premature. What are your thoughts on the above?

[martin II]

Martin,

You are confusing me, smile. I think you mean that Nicole's murder was a rage killing. It is possible for bobaugust to call it both, immro, depending on whether or not doing so convicts Simpson, smile.

correct
martinII

[martin II]

correct
martinII

william

i am trying to answer about 20 work related e-mails as i try to post. so please excuse the confusion.]

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Then we have reached a consensus. Likewise, I believe the killing to be personal and precise, as you posted. Given those facts, I would surmise that the motive was not one of jealousy or over a custody battle. I see a killing of this nature as more aligned with a financial motive or a necessity to avoid detection. With those thoughts in mind, it would appear that the killer(s) were enraged with Ron and that he was the intended victim. Therefore, given those postulates, the killer would be someone known to both Ron and Nicole, who knew that Ron was expected at Nicole’s. This would tend to eliminate Simpson? I know that his elimination at this point is premature. What are your thoughts on the above?


Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

[William Anthony]

william

i am trying to answer about 20 work related e-mails as i try to post. so please excuse the confusion.]

martin II

No problem!

[William Anthony]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

I believe that statistics will prove that abusers usually use a gun and often commit murder/suicide. I have never heard of a abuser stabbing himself to death. This does not mean it did not happen, only that I never heard of it. There is a lack of evidence, which the jury heard, that the abuse continued. To me it is more consistent with Ron being the intended victim and killed out of rage, as you posted. I do not know whether or not the killer(s) knew Nicole or whether she was killed to avoid the killer(s) being detected. Since the murders occurred at Bundy and Ron only said hey, hey, hey and/or had some sort of argument with the killer(s), that evidence suggests to me that the killer(s) knew Ron and Nicole.

[sassylassy]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate


see I thought the same thing, and ne night I was watching American Justice (or something) & someone had their throat cut the same way, as Nicole & they were saying that this type of crime meant this wasnt personal.....

so that kinda threw me for a loop- so I thought I would share that with U

:beer:

[martin II]

see I thought the same thing, and ne night I was watching American Justice (or something) & someone had their throat cut the same way, as Nicole & they were saying that this type of crime meant this wasnt personal.....

so that kinda threw me for a loop- so I thought I would share that with U

:beer:

sassy

there was another guy think his name was canter, that knew ron from the bar he worked at (monkey bar maby) and he was supose to have been involved in drug sales.imo His neck was cut like nicoles with a knife and it was said it was a drug killing .
martinII

[William Anthony]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

[fbgweezer]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

[martin II]

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

we are basically the same with the exception of a few quirks and different flags. not much difference in Toronto and Boston other than Toronto is a beautiful city.
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

No, but here is a link connecting spousal abuse with guns.

http://crimemagazine.com/guns.htm

Have you found one asking people not to sell knives to spousal abusers?

[socaldiva]

we are basically the same with the exception of a few quirks and different flags. not much difference in Toronto and Boston other than Toronto is a beautiful city.
imo
martin II

Canada & America are the same, except a "few quirks & different flags"? :lol:

[sassylassy]

sassy

there was another guy think his name was canter, that knew ron from the bar he worked at (monkey bar maby) and he was supose to have been involved in drug sales.imo His neck was cut like nicoles with a knife and it was said it was a drug killing .
martinII


yes, I heard about Brett. and there was 2 other guys I believe that were brutally murdered as well.....when you piece those crimes all together it makes you think umm maybe something else was going on.....

[sassylassy]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

I wonder if there is a profile that shows the most common way victims of D.V were murdered....that is something I would really like to see.

[martin II]

yes, I heard about Brett. and there was 2 other guys I believe that were brutally murdered as well.....when you piece those crimes all together it makes you think umm maybe something else was going on.....

I think bret ran the Monkey bar and ron. nicole and fay and i think R Greer
frequented this bar. Another guy that knew bret died when someone put a bomb in his car.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?



I posted excerpts from John Douglas' book about these murders to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. As to whether or not Simpson's killing was a rage killing or not would depend on someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

When Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson and surprised him, Simpson attacked Ron. Simpson didn't know what it took to kill someone so he just continued stabbing and cutting Ron until he stopped struggling. I referred to that as a rage killing.

John Douglas believes that the kind of overkill of Nicole, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly cut off, represents rage.

There is no conflict here we all agree that whatever you call the killings the fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.

You keep referring to some mysterious poster who supposedly supplied you with some mysterious information and then you say two prosecution witnesses disagree.

What posting?
What prosecution witnesses?
What information?

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

Did you read that there is not a problem with bandwith? Why should I be taken to task? Why are you so insistent on having me taken to task when I did nothing worng? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HARASS ME WHEN I HAVE ASKED FOR THE HARASSMENT TO STOP?

Man are you paranoid or what? I was responding to Martin's post to you. He posts about how a few G's will send an order to cut the size of Bob's post! I just found it quite odd that he takes us to task, but didn't take you to task for "snipping" Bob's post yourself when you were responding to it.

It's your problem if you think that I am harrassing you. It is not harrassing. If it were, you have been harrassing me from Day 1! Maybe we should take it to Freshwater since you are having such a problem about nothing!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Which word didn't you understand? I was saying what I believe. Why are you questioning me? Are you a moderator? Just curious!

What would a Moderator have to do with the above questions? Are you a Moderator? Just curious! :rolleyes:

I asked the question because I was very suspect. Now I am not because you have just confirmed my suspicions. Thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

[littlebit]

What would a Moderator have to do with the above questions? Are you a Moderator? Just curious! :rolleyes:

I asked the question because I was very suspect. Now I am not because you have just confirmed my suspicions. Thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

I am happy to help. You are welcome.

[William Anthony]

Man are you paranoid or what? I was responding to Martin's post to you. He posts about how a few G's will send an order to cut the size of Bob's post! I just found it quite odd that he takes us to task, but didn't take you to task for "snipping" Bob's post yourself when you were responding to it.

It's your problem if you think that I am harrassing you. It is not harrassing. If it were, you have been harrassing me from Day 1! Maybe we should take it to Freshwater since you are having such a problem about nothing!

JMO and MOO!!

First, I did not snip bob's post. As for the rest of your post, this is a war that I do not... So, :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I posted excerpts from John Douglas' book about these murders to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. As to whether or not Simpson's killing was a rage killing or not would depend on someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

When Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson and surprised him, Simpson attacked Ron. Simpson didn't know what it took to kill someone so he just continued stabbing and cutting Ron until he stopped struggling. I referred to that as a rage killing.

John Douglas believes that the kind of overkill of Nicole, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly cut off, represents rage.

There is no conflict here we all agree that whatever you call the killings the fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

You have posted that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage and then posted this was not a rage killing. You posted the article that stated it was a rage killing. However, when Kate posted information about the killing being a precise killing, you then stated it was not a rage killing. Talk about spining! That rug you are spiining should reach around the world.

I do not know who we all are. I do not know who the killer was/is. There are several posters who do not believe Simpson is the killer. If you are atttemting to say that those of us who do not wholeheartlly agree with you are not we/human, then I find this post HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING Now, you are trying to say that it does not matter whether or not the killing was done in rage. Keep that yarn twirling! The prosecution based their case on the fact that Simpson was enraged, and, therefore, he killed Nicole. So you are disputing the prosecution.

[martin II]

You have posted that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage and then posted this was not a rage killing. You posted the article that stated it was a rage killing. However, when Kate posted information about the killing being a precise killing, you then stated it was not a rage killing. Talk about spining! That rug you are spiining should reach around the world.

I do not know who we all are. I do not know who the killer was/is. There are several posters who do not believe Simpson is the killer. If you are atttemting to say that those of us who do not wholeheartlly agree with you are not we/human, then I find this post HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING Now, you are trying to say that it does not matter whether or not the killing was done in rage. Keep that yarn twirling! The prosecution based their case on the fact that Simpson was enraged, and, therefore, he killed Nicole. So you are disputing the prosecution.


william

i thought previously bob stated that oj was driving around when he got the Paula call. that call just flipped him completely into a murdering rage and he just drove on over to bundy and cut nicole and her boyfriend up.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

i thought previously bob stated that oj was driving around when he got the Paula call. that call just flipped him completely into a murdering rage and he just drove on over to bundy and cut nicole and her boyfriend up.imo
martin II

I wonder if bobaugust is a spin doctor by profession?

[2L8 4A D8]

First, I did not snip bob's post. As for the rest of your post, this is a war that I do not... So, :seeya: :seeya:

Yes, please do both of us a favor and don't post to me, period! And yes, it would be nice to see you Practice What Your Signature Preaches!

JMO and MOO!!

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

In Canada, which is where this link references, gins are the most commonly used.

According to a 1997 report issued by the Department of Justice, the slashing of a throat with a knife is what is listed as the most common method of killing in an abusive relationship when the killer does not wish to kill him/herself as well. I believe you should be able to find the report online, but if not I have the paper copy and can scan it into a PDF format and then email it to you.

Kate